Anyone else feel kinda sorry for the natives?

Go get drunk and beat your wife, red deer.

I don't feel sorry for them. History is just what it is. However, I'd really love to know what Aztec and Incan culture would be like today if no one had intervened in their nation building. It'd probably be really shitty with lots of poverty, but I bet the culture would super cool.

>all the Americas is USA
Oh yes let's bring the Spanish into the conversation, as we all know they did their utmost to treat natives with respect and never killed entire civilizations because of a yellow metal.

There reality isn't any better in most areas outside of US. Also,
>Euros had it bad a few times so it's justifiable for them to act like sociopaths in totally unrelated instances
SJW-tier logic

>they did their utmost to treat natives with respect
Is this a new form of fagotry?
>and never killed entire civilizations because of a yellow metal.
Your right about that. They never killed an entire civilization. Diseases did. They did change a civilization however.

>It'd probably be really shitty with lots of poverty
Isn't that what it's like now following intervention?

You really need to educate yourself on this subject if you want a serious discussion

Spanish never killed off a civilization you twit. They integrated the redskins into their own.

Yes, but it's a western type of poverty. What I mean is that it would probably have looked more like Calcutta or something.

>Spanish never killed off a civilization
wow.... seriously, educate yourself.

>Mexico
>western type of poverty
Uh, sure thing.

Natives weren't civilized until Cortes impregnated Malinche and created the first mestizo.Natives were genetic garbage and their genes had to be cleansed through massive breeding programs

>hurr civilized maymay durr
What classifies a culture as civilized to you? Keep in mind, "being white XD" is not a standard of development.

>no argument
Civilization is fluid. With the Spanish and Portuguese you have a clear cultural diffusion with the Amerindians. Racially they produced a largely mixed stock of mestizos. Spiritually you have a clear mixture of European and Amerindian beliefs such as the Lady of Guadalupe. Politically you have instances like the Spanish keeping the same potato distribution system of the Incas. Hell, the Spanish even wanted to preserve the Aztec Empire but the 200,000 Amerindians who fought with the 1500 conquistadors wouldn't have it.

I can sort of see the argument that the USA "killed off" Amerindian civilization. But even this isn't factually correct in a purely technical sense . USA simply severely limited the scope of Amerindian civilization to the point of irrelevance. But i'm not buying that the Spanish and Portuguese "killed" Amerindian civilization. They certainly defeated it though.

>Tenochtitlan was founded on an islet in the western part of the lake in the year 1325. Around it, the Aztecs created a large artificial island using a system similar to the creation of chinampas. To overcome the problems of drinking water, the Aztecs built a system of dams to separate the salty waters of the lake from the rain water of the effluents. It also permitted them to control the level of the lake. The city also had an inner system of channels that helped to control the water.

>During Cortés' siege of Tenochtitlan in 1521, the dams were destroyed, and never rebuilt, so flooding became a big problem for the new Mexico City built over Tenochtitlan.

>Mexico City suffered from periodic floods; in 1604 the lake flooded the city, with an even more severe flood following in 1607. Under the direction of Enrico Martínez, a drain was built to control the level of the lake, but in 1629 another flood kept most of the city covered for five years.

>Eventually the lake was drained by the channels and a tunnel to the Pánuco River, but even that could not stop floods, since by then most of the city was under the water table. The flooding could not be completely controlled until 1967, with the construction of a Deep Drainage System.

>The ecological consequences of the draining were enormous. Parts of the valleys were turned semi-arid, and even today Mexico City suffers for lack of water. Due to overdrafting that is depleting the aquifer beneath the city, Mexico City is estimated to have dropped 10 meters in the last century. Furthermore, because soft lake sediments underlie most of Mexico City, the city has proven vulnerable to soil liquefaction during earthquakes, most notably in the 1985 earthquake when hundreds of buildings collapsed and 45 000 lives were lost.

>What classifies a culture as civilized to you?
Not sacrificing virgin women

>the Spanish even wanted to preserve the Aztec Empire
Source on this?

>The copy passta autist
Technotitlan was shit

>muh feelings about violence
Is not an argument. If you want to use that to discredit an entire empire that developed well in every other aspect then you might as well check every single one off the list as "savage" because they have all partaken in brutality.

newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Hernán_Cortés

The way Indians were treated varied from one part of the Americas to another. However, they were generally treated better in the Kingdom of New Spain than in Peru. With great vision, Cortés tried to preserve the monuments of the Aztecs and funded the construction of schools and hospitals out of his own pocket, providing for them in his will.[19]

They were barbarians without the wheel.Barely human

>The copy passta autist
not an argument
>Technotitlan was shit
not an argument

stay butthurt

Give valid reasons why it was shit then, because as far as facts go it looks pretty good on paper.

>wheel
Wheels have been found to have been used on toys. They understood the concept, they just didn't care for reasons that are most likely contextual.

>Anyone else feel kinda sorry for the natives?

The natives of mesoamerica? Not really, no.
Thanks for asking tho

careful, youll trigger the shitskin from the last thread into a line by line, sentence by sentence autistic quoting tirade

This. Liking a civilization is one thing. I like ancient Egypt. This being said, I don't feel sorry for the ancient Egyptian.

Hmm, interesting. Thank you.

You don't even believe this shit.

Feeling sorry is one thing, claiming that you're not accountable for their actions while attempting to justify them in the same breath is another. And refusing to remain unbiased and listen to facts is going to piss anyone off just as well.

If they didn't destroy civilizations than why is their religion no longer practiced? Why the prohibitions of dances and dramas (to the point where only one or a couple of the precolumbian era survive to this day), why were they forced to adopt the roman alphabet and their writings censored, why did the elite get brainwashed as children, why are the few remnants of the cultures only survive in rural villages where imposing control was harder? Disease weakened them yes, but the Spanish worked hard to eradicate the civilizations here. Why do you think they burned all the codices they could find?

They had the wheel, and barbarian is a subjective term, in the perspective of the natives spaniards were barbarians too.

>what is cultural diffusion
We should require people take a knowledge test before posting on Veeky Forums.

>in the perspective of the natives spaniards were gods
tbf anyone can be a god to natives and their shit genetics

Forced diffusion
>there's a term for it therefore it was ok

>Forced
No more forced than the aztecs or incas you faggot.

What do you think has repeatedly happened since people supposedly began migrating out of Africa 200,000 years ago? Every time on crossed paths with another group "forced" diffusion happened. How could it not? Spanish aren't even close to unique in this regard.

>the Aztecs thought the Spanish were gods maymay
Keep showing your superficial - bordering on ignorance - understanding of the topic.

>Keep showing your superficial - bordering on ignorance - understanding of the topic.
They thought they were gods at least at the beginning.Well and their women

No they didn't. If you are refering the Quetzalcaotl myth, that was a mix of misunderstanding of indigenous protocols and early colonialist propaganda.

jstor.org/stable/10.1086/529592?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Yes, europeans are the real rapists and immigrants

It's a meme. There's no evidence that would prove that any of the natives really thought the Spanish were gods, and plenty of evidence points to the contrary. I remember hearing that upon the first meeting between Cortes and Moctezuma II, Cortes reached out to him for a handshake or any type of similar greeting, and was immediately blocked off by guards. Nobody touches the king apparently, and it's thought that the Aztecs regarded their kings as the closest embodiments to gods on earth.

>There's no evidence that would prove that any of the natives really thought the Spanish were gods
>All this revisionism to make dumb natives look like inteligent people
Read the conquest of Mexico by Hugh Thomas and stop reading the pastas from that autistic umpalumpa

To the last two posters saying "it was a meme" it wasn't.

I've read that book you cited by the way, she's actually wrong about the source credit for the claim of Aztecs treating them as divine agents, Bernal Diaz and Olmedo are far more reputable and were there during the whole conquest.

The confusion, is that people believe the Aztecs thought they were gods. Nay, they believed them, initially to be agents of divine origin. Quetzalcaotl. This was highly doubted by select few representatives amongst the natives; Moctezuma did at first fear its truth, but later, came to deny this.

They managed to retain this illusion of divine power due to the strength of their arms and power of their martial prowess. It's only at the very end, that most of the Tenochitlans regard them with contempt, one could argue once the Noche triste happens.

But the point is, the "myth" of natives believing the Spanish to divine agents, is very real, just with more nuances than people of either sides of the debates like.

Read:
Restall, Matthew (2003). Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest.
Lockhart, James, ed. (1993). We People Here: Nahuatl Accounts of the Conquest of Mexico.
Smith, Michael E. (2003). The Aztecs (2nd ed.)
Gillespie, Susan D (1989). The Aztec Kings: The Construction of Rulership in Mexica History

ah yes, good old (((restall))) (((lockhart))) and (((smith)))

sure thing bud, ill get right on that.

What if I've read it all, as I'm a scholar on the topic, and I still don't agree with them, as their evidence is based on nothing but theorisation on "what actually happened", as opposed to taking the source evidence from those who were there?

The problem is the Aztecs had no 'Gods', the closest to that is Teotl, a belief with more than one definition. Which is applied to things that are also unusual or strange. Sometimes to things that are bright or shine.

>Yfw the roleplaying chicanos are more likely to descend from the native allies of Spain rather than the glorious aztecs.

That's literally nothing but "they didn't actually have gods, so you can't be right ha ha ha", they did. Now if you want to argue semantics about how they distinguished them, fine, but they had clear distinctions of a divine entity, they even had previous associations, via Texococo to ideas of an "supreme" omniscient god.

Your claim is just stupid basically.

You guys are flat earther tier

The sources aren't always that reliable too, especially Diaz de Castillo. There are truths, but picking apart what parts are misunderstandings, which parts embelished (remember many were writing for an audience in spain) and exotic stories like this were in the fashion. Everyone writing at the time had an agenda, including the natives, but often they directed their speech against their native rivals, to elevate the status of their lineage. The tricky thing with first hand accounts is finding which parts are true and which aren't, archeology helps in this regard. But when it comes to the religious aspects it's like finding shit in mud.

If you're not going to accept the source material for its claim. Fine, but that does nothing for arguing its counter. I wish these people would remain historically objective and just say, "I don't believe this to be plausible, but I can't go back in time so, hey!", rather than literally make shit up.

They bring no sources just some loose theories.First account sources give a totally different view of the event than the baseless assumptions of those scholars.
The Spanish universities in America focused mostly on theology and native linguistics.They knew and understood native culture after studying it for a while and even created the first grammatical rules for different native languages like Guarani(I know it is from Paraguay but the Jesuit scholars worked the same way everywhere).The idea that everyone until the XX century didn't understood the natives in Mexico is just dumb

The Jews do the same things when it comes to the Bible. "All the bible is a forgery by Paul! Except those parts which could construed to be favorable towards us!"

The allies of the Spanish, the Tlaxcalans were Aztecs too. The defeated ones were the Mexicah.
That doesn't mean all Mexicans descend from the Tlaxcalans, or some other Aztec people.

The Aztecs were a tribute empire. They got their power from running around killing eveybody until they pledged their allegiance and gave them all their loot. Pretty nasty assholes. And a big reason the Spaniards had such an easy go at taking them down.

But yeah, I guess all the peasants and artisans and all the tribute cultures that were forced into it I'll feel sorry for.

It's hard to tell, the conquest period was a clusterfuck of alliances and hostilities. Many mexicans also probably have some african in them too (since their role in the conquest is severely downplayed) without knowing it. It's sad really, the conquest wouldn't be possible without the black conquistadors that formed part of the groups. Characters we will never know about.

The cruelty of the Iberian colonists puts even the Nazis and American slavery to shame.

t.dutchcuck

Honestly, they came at the right time when the other allies were tired of montezuma's shit.

>First account sources give a totally different view of the event than the baseless assumptions of those scholars.

It's impressive how you guys can outright reply to a post without reading anything of what said. >Everyone writing at the time had an agenda

There was 1 mulatto in the expedition I think.Or maybe it was just a morisco

>the conquest wouldn't be possible without the black conquistadors

Whats with the recent /pol/tier shitposting about the Amerindians? A thread dies an another one is made right up

>t-they didn't have the wheel
>t-they thought the Spaniards were gods
>(((Smith))) nice source

Sure, /pol/leaks everywhere, but there seems to be a guy mad regarding this theme

Castillo was about to die when he wrote it.He couldn't have much of an agenda.An even then there are multiple primary sources that conclude basically in the same things.The Spaniards mastered the native languages the Jesuits had an idea of how natives thought and what they believed at the time specially as some Spanish allies spoke the same language than the Mexica

Please refrain your subtle racism in this discourse.
Free blacks, some slave soldiers and mixed race ones which some would consider black too. That's more than one. I bet you were unaware of the women who paricipated too, or the non Spaniards in the Conquistador groups.

AYO HOL UP! SO YOU BE SAYIN WE WUZ CONQUSTADORS N SHEEIT?!?

There was 1 black in Cortés expedition and 2 in Alvarado's expedition( both free slaves).
The African influence in Mexico is residual

The last one had a guy making a ridiculous claim. This one starts sympathetic, I don't think they are the same person. But I believe those replying are the same people. Personally I believe there's at least 6 or so Mesoamerican enthusiasts or Mesoboos. One shills the Tarascans, we have at least two Aztecboos, one Mayaboo, one guy from Guatemala, there's this other guy who apparently knows Nahuatl, a few Hispanistas (Spanish apologists) probably from Hispachan or Mexipol, Spanishboos in general, a Paraguayan guy and two Incaboos. I think because they have special interest in the Americas (precolumbian and conquest period) they flock to threads like this like vultures hungry ready to spam what they know.

>There was 1 black in Cortés expedition and 2
But of course per sjw logic without these 3 niggers the Spanish would have had no success. After all it's not like 3 spaniards could have possibly fulfilled whatever meager support they provided.

Sure this must be why they are depicted in the codices and artwork byt he natives if they were only 3.

>Castillo was about to die when he wrote it.He couldn't have much of an agenda.
His whole work is an alleging for more estates to his descendants in reward for his services. This is literally the basics of the book.
for fucks sake why am i even replying

No need to use racial slurs such as the n-word. Veeky Forums is for intelligent discourse. That kind of language belongs on /b/ or /pol/.

Anyway Spaniards were not even the majority of the Conquistadors. They led it, sure. But it was actually quite multiracial and mutlicultural as they started integrating natives among them.

>natives
>niggers
Pick one. Also doesn't this simply destroy the sjw argument that Whites were le ebil rasist if they worked freely with multiple races? As if some other factors besides race played a role in the behavior of the parties involved?

It's a true testament to how quick /pol/fags and co. are quick to shit on anything nonwhite. I can live with assumptions I have on the Mesoamericans being challenged as long as there is an argument behind it, there is a lot of contradicting information out there regarding this topic. Anyone who just keeps spamming "barbarians :o" "skitskin genetics," "uncivilized," or any of the other retarded claims they love to make without base knowledge needs to fucking go back though.

Conquistadors where all Spanish. The native armies were not conquistadors just mercenaries

>to his descendants in reward for his services.
How is that a political agenda? That is a personal agenda because he was butthurt about how little most soldiers recieved compared to Cortés. Have you even read the book or just the wiki article? It is a pretty neutral book and doesn't paint the natives in a bad tone. It is just a biography. Claiming that it is not a valid source because an "agenda" while the supposed agenda had nothing to do with the natives

My arguments have nothing to do with sjw. Hell I'm rightwing but that the conquistador armies were diverse racially, ethnically and culturally is a fact. And all I'm saying is denying the role of blacks and other races does a disservice. Hernan Cortes must be rolling in his grave.

>Hell I'm rightwing
And i'm a Black female.
Honestly though the role niggers played in the Spanish conquest was marginal at best.

The Spaniards, on paper, didn't care about race. What people forget about the "Caste System" is that it was mostly the Spaniards autism acting up and trying to classify race in a weird way.

The only "racial laws" they ever implement were the Borbonic laws which made high positions in government and Church in America only available for Spain born Spaniards, the laws that made non Christian Amerindians to have a fixated residence to be controlled and the laws regarding the treatment of non Catholics.

>but user, the Spaniards didn't let non Whites to do this and that

That was literal racism and in some case classism, but not a law nor part of the Spanish bureaucratic system. Spain had to issue many laws and statements regarding the treatment of Amerindians and Blacks, Spanish subjects like everybody else, but like people said back then, "the King and the Pope are far away". Spain had to sent all the time judges to treat cases presented by Amerindians because local judges refused to deal with them, the Church had to sent specialists to deal with affairs of Amerindians because of the same reason.

Every time you see someone from back then (before the Borbonic laws) who was Black, Amerindian or Mixed and held a high position on government or whatever, usually the reason was they were somehow related to someone important, so the actual racism of the time which would stop them from reaching high positions had to be contained.

In >muh country, there was this Black guy who became the military leader of the territory, how was he able to become such a high ranking officer? Well, his sister married the son of the governor, and that's just one example.

Regarding the treatment of Amerindians in terms of conquests, the Spaniards usually allied themselves with a local group, alliance they used to conquer and subjugate the rest. These Native allies and their descendants were "equal" to the Spaniards and exempt of the ecomienda system, unlike the "conquered" ones.

>How is that a political agenda?

>That is a personal agenda because he was butthurt about how little most soldiers recieved compared to Cortés

enjoy your last (You)

Europeans are probably less biased than redskin accounts. Yet continue your bias sperging.

>The only "racial laws" they ever implement were the Borbonic laws which made high positions in government and Church in America only available for Spain born Spaniards, the laws that made non Christian Amerindians to have a fixated residence to be controlled and the laws regarding the treatment of non Catholics.
Wrong.The laws allowed the king to appoint freely positions o power in America so they always chose people that they could trust (all lived in Spain)

>And i'm a Black female.
>A female posts here
Don't buy it.Timestamp or you are just Jamal
How does his bias against Cortés affect his primary source about the Aztecs.Have you even read it or you just looked it up in the wikipedia?

>not conquistadors
>hagan la conquista
>no son conquistadores
jjejejejejejejejeje

I came across this earlier. If the source is to be believed, then they didn't really feel any type of way about the invaders.

>What is most remarkable is that the Aztec account of the Conquest, is almost completely non-judgmental. Although they describe Spanish atrocities in gory detail, it is done factually, with little emotion. Additionally, they give Cortes credit for attempting to negotiate peace with the various tribes he met en-route to Tenochtitlan, the Aztec Capital. Even in Cholula, the single city in which the Spaniards actually massacred most of the inhabitants, the Aztec report of the event includes the possibility that it may have been provoked by falsehoods spread by the Tlaxcalan allies of the Conquistadors. Nowhere in the Aztec accounts of the Conquest do we find any effort to paint the Spaniards as monsters.

google.com/amp/s/malincheinfo.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/the-aztec-account-of-the-conquest-of-mexico/amp/

>Nowhere in the Aztec accounts of the Conquest do we find any effort to paint the Spaniards as monsters.
That's because the Spanish objectively weren't monsters. It's more dutch propaganda than anything that paints them that way.

She can't post her tits with timestamp on a blue board. But yes some girls browse here. I usually post in the meso threads sometimes with my friends who are female too. It is fun and we are enthusiasts. But we are more fans of the myths.

Only Castillians and Castillianized catholics had the right of settlement and conquest in the new world.Natives where just allies
Never said tits.