I constantly hear that colonization was this terribly evil doing, but I don't see it

IT WAS

that meme is the real history in this thread

Poltards on colonialism when they do it

>Lel they had it coming, they were backwards savages!!!

Poltards when they see a brown person in a so called "white" country

>Waaaaaaaa help I'm being genocided!!!!!! Fucking jews

As human I'd be concerned if aliens showed up preaching a new religion, fucking the women, giving us new liquids that were highly irresistible for all our lands, and putting us in say water mines or something whatever they hell they find valuable.

Also when they laugh at us and say "you don't think your 4 dimensional property is worth more than 1 trillion tons of gold? hahaah" then I'd sort of feel concerned that our immune system might be up to snuff.

The Aztecs absolutely had it coming but the rest of Mesoamerica did not

There is nothing wrong with giving up that useless quantum rich 4th dimensional land

>giving us new liquids that were highly irresistible

... senpai what?

>when Becky tries to post strawmen about her boogeymen

>youtube.com/watch?v=Y7tvauOJMHo t. every shithole still in the stone age by the 16th century

Any good games about civilization?

Not OP but I literally see them every single day, and I also see literally nothing wrong with colonization.

If you mean colonization, I like Age of empires 3.

I'd like to mention that Catholicism in south america is full of Amerindian traditions that are kind of bizarre when you are taught your whole life that there is a single god.

The ritual of fertility where we give offerings to Pachamama never hit me as odd until I became an adult and realized "HMMM, this seems a bit pagan"

It's generally that the locals tend to get ground into the dust for the benefit of whatever nation decided their society wasn't worth giving a shit about.

Nothing wrong with colonization. It's perfectly normal for a militarily superior race to exploit another just because it can.

Colonisation ain't wrong anymore than Rome conquering Iberia and gaul was.

Not him, but I'm assuming he's referencing alcohol. Natives didn't have a tolerance built up over thousands of years of alcohol consumption. They're much more predispositioned to be alcoholics due to their lack of tolerance.

>Natives didn't have a tolerance built up over thousands of years of alcohol consumption.
Aha, so that explains why they're so eager to catch up.

You don't see all the murder, rape, torture, slavery, and so on?

That all existed independently of colonialism, and will continue to do so.

I would say it was fine but only for the first couple of years. The Europeans could easily get the land they wanted without stepping on the natives toes but that never lasted long.

>so then like all of it
>Leaving global trade networks, technology, education, fulfilling spirituality, infrastructure,
Those fucking assholes

>natives get wiped out
>natives don't want to be wiped out
That's literally all it takes to make you look like an idiot

i eagerly await the aylmao promise of free heroin

Jokes on you. I've already started building a tolerance to heroin, and will make sure my children build a tolerance to heroin. When the rest of you are being taken over by alien heroin, I'll already be ahead of the curve and so will my descendants.

Aztecs were the Rome of Mesoamerica. Grand and too grand for its own good, to the point where its collapse would seriously set back the region. While the rest of Mesoamerica did nothing truly to deserve conquest besides in the spanish view be pagan, they also could not mount an effective defense after the Aztecs' end either.

>Aztecs
>Rome
>implying

The conquered people got literally nothing favorable out of Aztec conquest, the Incas were the Rome of the Americas.

I went to Sao Tomé and Principe last year where slavery was in place until 1974, not slavery slavery, more like Qatar and Dubai slavery. I was expecting to be hated because im portuguese, but in Sao Tome theres two type of people, the natives and the "hired" which were blacks from other colonies which lived in plantations and were pretty much exploited. Some people did indeed give me the side looks but i was surprised to find that the natives see themselves as superior and less nigger than the "hired", some that i spoke to even said that they would be better off under portuguese rule and that the country was a mess now. So the answer is that there is two sides to a story.

Depends on how they treat the natives really. Stay out of their way/trade for land/integrate them (>tfw not living in timeline where america peacefully immigrated natives) and you're cool
Too bad basically noone did this.

The Incas would've become the American Rome if they had more time but the Aztecs were just a tribe that happened to be on top when the spanish arrived.

I'm not trying to be prickly but Rome is a ridiculously bad analogy for the Aztecs. Their empires couldn't have been more different; Rome defined what "empire" meant in Europe for hundreds of years, and the Aztec Empire wasn't even really an empire in the European sense at all.

And as the prev. poster mentioned, the city-states the Aztecs conquered did not benefit from their rule, the fall of Tenochtitlan didn't destabilize Mesoamerica, and several other Mesoamerican powers directly benefited from the Aztecs' defeat (at least until they too were taken over).

Those aren't free former french african still pay colonial taxes today

it wasnt an enlightenment program lol

>had all their needs met. Plus, they let them keep their gods, so long as they have offerings to the Sapa Inca.
They literally deported different populations that were recently conquered and sent them to the troublesome provinces so they had to cooperate to defend themselves and eventually forgot their culture. USSR tier.

>the Aztecs had it coming, as their system harbored actually loyalty rather than bullshit and flimsy fear tactics
Incas drowned and army of 20 000 that already surrendered just to prove their imperial power against rebels. Both the Inca and the Aztecs ahd their king killed and the heir dead by smallpox. Incas went to civil war, Aztecs didn't.

You really think Aztecs just exploited people without benefiting some? No one would have paid them tribute even with intimidation, basic logic I fucking swear.

>Empire was even nice enough to build roads to connect the tribes, since they hadn’t invented the wheel and needed effective ways to carry messages
they did invent the wheel, it was of no use without draft animals

>The conquered people got literally nothing favorable out of Aztec conquest, the Incas were the Rome of the Americas
Aztecs didn't impose language, religion, political system and culture by destroying the native one. So yes, Incas were both Spanish and Rome tier.

pic related, a shrine of an "oppressed" and "innocent" people subjugated by the perfidious Aztecs

ahh yes, those poor and innocent people subjugated by the aztecs

>Our route now lay across the territory of the township Xocotlan. We sent before us two Indians of Sempoalla to the cazique, to acquaint him of our approach, and beg of him to give us an hospitable reception. As the inhabitants of this district were subject to Motecusuma, everything wore a different aspect, and we marched forward with the utmost precaution and in close array. For the rest, we were as much pleased with this spot as with many a Spanish town, on account of the numerous and beautifully whitewashed balconies, the dwellings of the caziques, and the elevated temples wholly built of stone and lime. We, therefore, called it Castilblanco, which name it still retains; for a Portuguese soldier, who was among our troops, assured us, the place was very like the town of Casteloblanco in Portugal.
>One certain spot in this township I never shall forget, situated near the temple. Here a vast number of human skulls were piled up in the best order imaginable,—there must have been more than 100,000; I repeat, more than 100,000. (...) Similar horrible sights we saw towards the interior of the country in every township, and even in Tlascalla.
- The True History of the Conquest of New Spain by Bernal Diaz del Castillo, Chapter LXI

>In some cases they had it coming (Aztecs governmental system for uniting and maintaining their empire could only work if no outside force acted on it), but sometimes it’s just straight up cruelty (this little kid didn’t meet his rubber quota? That’s an ear, boy)!
Ahh yes, that Aztec primitive political system that couldn't withstand 20+ diseases and 3 decisive militar technologies (not invented by the people who used them in the americas) equal to take aircraft and tanks to the Napoleonic battles.
What a bunch of violent ooga boogas amirite.

>Guzman's troops everywhere committed terrible depredations. The first province he marched through was Mechoacan, the inhabitants of which still possessed abundance of gold, though not of the finest quality, as it contained a considerable alloy of silver, for which reason Guzman compelled them to contribute a larger amount. Casonci, the principal cazique of the province, boldly refused to give him so great a quantity of gold as he demanded, wherefore Guzman ordered him to be tortured, by pouring hot oil over his feet; but as the unfortunate cazique, notwithstanding all the torments he endured, still remained firm to his purpose, he was ordered to be hung.
- The True History of the Conquest of New Spain by Bernal Diaz del Castillo, CXCVII

>One time I saw four or five of the principal lords roasted and broiled upon these gridirons.
>Also I think that there were two or three of these gridirons, garnished with the like furniture, and for that they cried out pitifully, which thing troubled the Captain that he could not then sleep: he commanded to strangle them. The Sergeant, which was worse than the hangman that burned them
>behaving them as savage beasts, the slaughterers and deadly enemies of mankind: they taught their Hounds, fierce Dogs, to tear them in pieces at the first view, and in the space that one may say a Credo, assailed and devoured an Indian as if it had been a swine.
- Bartolomé de las Casas

inb4 this is all madeup bullshit but everything said about the aztecs is true

Tell me more.

great argument

so whats the difference between aztecs ruling them or spain? seems better to be under spain assuming you dont get small pox.

About 93% of the population in the Americas died by the +20 diseases from the Old World. The Spanish would have faced far more rebellions and wars had those diseases not been introduced.

>According to the Spanish the Aztecs sacrificed 10 000 children every year., yet only 42 sacrificed children have been found in the most important temple of the empire. 42 children in 200 years. On the exact same spot the Spanish massacred 8 000 - 10 000 unarmed nobles and their children in a couple of hours.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_in_the_Great_Temple

>While Hernán Cortés was in Tenochtitlan, he heard about other Spaniards arriving on the coast – Pánfilo de Narváez had come from Cuba with orders to arrest him – and Cortés was forced to leave the city to fight them. During his absence, Moctezuma asked deputy governor Pedro de Alvarado for permission to celebrate Toxcatl. But after the festivities had started, Alvarado interrupted the celebration, killing almost everyone present at the festival, men, women, and children alike. Unarmed and trapped within the walls of the Sacred Precinct, an estimated 8,000–10,000 Aztec nobles were killed.

>At this time, when everyone was enjoying the celebration, when everyone was already dancing, when everyone was already singing, they came to close the exits. At that moment, they then attacked all the people, stabbing them, spearing them, wounding them with their swords. They struck some from behind, who fell instantly to the ground with their entrails hanging out [of their bodies]. They cut off the heads of some and smashed the heads of others into little pieces. They struck others in the shoulders and tore their arms from their bodies. They struck some in the thighs and some in the calves. They slashed others in the abdomen and their entrails fell to the earth. There were some who even ran in vain, but their bowels spilled as they ran; they seemed to get their feet entangled with their own entrails.

I like the Dan Carlin argument on Empire.

Empire is great if you're a few hundred years after the event. Its less glamorous if you're one of the poor schmucks who gets "moved on"

Colonialism is no different from any other type of consoldiation of peoples. Whether they are within your own tribe, the tribe next door or 10,000 miles away. The artificiality are those people who treat European colonialism as different somehow.

Why do you always post this? Ritual torture and human sacrifice has always been a thing with Amerindians. Even if only one man was tortured and murdered, it is a morally repugnant thing and the people who practice it should be put to the sword for their barbarism.

>people with a different religion sacrificed and "tortured" 40 children by slicing their throats

>lets slash the entrails and tore the limbs of 10 000 of them included their children to teach them how repulsive is to kill!!

They sacrificed thousands.

Conquest has been happening for thousands of years, colonization is no different. The academic community and media has succesfully infected the west with guilt and shame. Any other civilisation would have done the same if it could.

still less than the spanish

>Cortés and his men entered Cholula without active resistance. However, they were not met by the city leaders and were not given food and drink on the third day.[22]:192 Cempoalans reported that fortifications were being constructed around the city and the Tlaxcalans were warning the Spaniards.[22]:193 Finally, La Malinche informed Cortés, after talking to the wife of one of the lords of Cholula, that the locals planned to murder the Spanish in their sleep.[22]:196 Although he did not know if the rumor was true or not, Cortés ordered a pre-emptive strike, urged by the Tlaxcalans, the enemies of the Cholulans. Cortés confronted the city leaders in the main temple alleging that they were planning to attack his men. They admitted that they had been ordered to resist by Moctezuma, but they claimed they had not followed his orders. Regardless, on command, the Spaniards seized and killed many of the local nobles to serve as a lesson.[22]:199

>They captured the Cholulan leaders Tlaquiach and Tlalchiac and then ordered the city to be set on fire. The troops started in the palace of Xacayatzin, and then on to Chialinco and Yetzcoloc. In letters to his King, Cortés claimed that in three hours time his troops (helped by the Tlaxcalans) killed 3,000 people and had burned the city.[43] Another witness, Vázquez de Tapia, claimed the death toll was as high as 30,000

>kills your entire family and steals all your possessions
>"wow, why are you so ungrateful, we gave you some railways."

>>education
lmao

>”These people had no letters nor script, neither knew to write nor read. They communicated with images and paintings and all their history and books were recorded in figures and images, with which they knew about their ancestors and had memory of what they did and what they left recorded for more than a thousand years before the Spanish arrived to this land.”

>”Most of these books and recordings were burnt as other idolatries”, but many of them are still hidden. ”After we came to this land to preach our fate we gathered many young men in our homes and taught them to write, read and sing. As they did well we ensured to teach them grammar and a school in Santiago de Tlatelolco was built for this purpose. This school received the most able young men from all the neighboring towns. ”

>”The Spanish and clergymen who knew about this laughed and mocked, being sure that no one could teach grammar to people so unskillful, but working with them for two or three years they came to understand every art and subject of grammar and speak Latin, both written and spoken and even to write heroic verses. ”

>”As the secular and ecclesiastic clergymen saw this they became frightened of such thing being possible: I was the one who worked with them for the first four years and taught them about Latin and its knowledge. ”
>”As they saw that this project would continue and that they were improving, and they had ability for more, the clerics started to disapprove the school and object about the risks of idolatry this implied. ”
- Florentine Codex by Friar Bernardino de Sahagun, Tenth Book, Inform of the author

Reportedly they also corrected friars for citing wrong biblical verses, in latin. The College of Tlatelolco got closed permanently 5 years after Sahagun's death.

Sacrifice is not the same as a massacre, battle, or a sack. There is an implied religious significance and the moral acceptance of the act.

>Some post-conquest sources report that at the re-consecration of Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan in 1487, the Aztecs sacrificed about 80,400 prisoners over the course of four days. This number is considered by Ross Hassig, author of Aztec Warfare, to be an exaggeration. Hassig states "between 10,000 and 80,400 persons" were sacrificed in the ceremony.[4] The higher estimate would average 14 sacrifices per minute during the four-day consecration. Four tables were arranged at the top so that the victims could be jettisoned down the sides of the temple.[9] Nonetheless, according to Codex Telleriano-Remensis, old Aztecs who talked with the missionaries told about a much lower figure for the reconsecration of the temple, approximately 4,000 victims in total.

>Michael Harner, in his 1977 article The Enigma of Aztec Sacrifice, estimates the number of persons sacrificed in central Mexico in the 15th century as high as 250,000 per year. Fernando de Alva Cortés Ixtlilxochitl, a Mexica descendant and the author of Codex Ixtlilxochitl, estimated that one in five children of the Mexica subjects was killed annually. Victor Davis Hanson argues that a claim by Don Carlos Zumárraga of 20,000 per annum is "more plausible."[10]

>Michael Harner, in his 1977 article The Enigma of Aztec Sacrifice
The same guy that argued that Aztecs sacrificed for cannibalism because their diet lacked proteins. He literally could not bother to calculate that 4kg of fish give more protein than an adult male of 60kg.

3.
>"Conservatively, we suppose that all the victims were males of 60kg with 16% of protein, a similar amount to the lean meat of pork and lamb (Consumer and Food Economics Research Division, 1963), and digestible in a 90%. A skillful butchering would provide 60% of this meat (Garn and Block, 1970). Thus, every victim would provide a total of 60kg*0.16*0.60*0.90= 5.18 kg. If we also consider many documents of this practice, only the limbs were eaten and the total of protein would be 5.18*0.35=1.81 kg. The same amount of protein can be found in four kilograms of fish."
>Aztecs had excelent sources of protein to compensate the lack of farm animals. For example, the lean meat of beef has 18.7% of protein and 18.2% of fat while lean meat of pork has 17.5% 13.2% respectively (Bresani 1972). In comparision the meat of the most common insect, the grasshopper, had up to 30% of protein while some other insects such as jumiles and the red mezcal worms had up to 70% (Ramos de Elurdoy, 1982).
- Bernardo Ortiz de Montellano, Aztec Medicine and Health, and Nutrition

>Fernando de Alva Cortés Ixtlilxochitl, a Mexica descendant, estimated that one in five children of the Mexica subjects was killed annually
He considered himself more a Texcocan and Spanish descendant, hence why he actually named himself Ixtlilxochitl (the only Aztec ruler who sided with the Spanish) and De Alva (last name of a famous Spanish general). Besides, the Mestizo historians of this time were trying to shit on the Aztecs and praise the Spanish conquest, while claiming noble ancestry so the Spaniards would give them social and economical benefits.

so? he's an anthropologist and it's not the most wild theory regarding the aztecs. besides it's known that they did practice cannibalism.
i don't care if he is a mestizo, montellano was also a mestizo.

>However, in addition to “merely” sacrificing humans, it is generally accepted by anthropologists that the Aztecs also cannibalized these sacrificial offerings. There are two main theories on why the Aztecs did so; one theory, from Michael Harner is based on the ecological and dietary situation of the Aztecs, and the other, Bernard Ortiz de Montellano’s theory, is based on the ideology of the Aztecs.

either way, you're looking at thousands sacrificed regularly .

>i don't care if he is a mestizo, montellano was also a mestizo
didn't only say he was a mestizo you cherrypicking piece of shit, but a mestizo of noble injun ancestry trying to get his noble benefits recognized

>either way, you're looking at thousands sacrificed regularly
see the Mayan Caste War, never ending warfare with thousands of dead, now imagine that the Spaniards did not introduce +20 epidemic diseases that killed 95% of the population

so?

>Mayan Caste War
more of a series of skirmishes.

This.

Iberia and Gaul were full of savage, uncivilized barbarians.

South America and Asia were not.

>South America and Asia were not.
lol

>3 decisive militar technologies (not invented by the people who used them in the americas) equal to take aircraft and tanks to the Napoleonic battles.

Brainlet.

>the spaniards lie about muh 10,000 children but muh 60 GORILLION CHILDREN AND WOMEN DIED AT THE TEMPLE AND YOU CANNOT REFUTE THIS

Now imagine those "skirmishes" with 20 times more population.

great argument

I provided both arguments to explain why the Spanish exaggerate and archeological evidence I think it's time to see yours.

>Africans invent science, medicine, architecture, build great cities, invent great philosophies, advanced irrigation techniques that if rediscovered could solve world hunger, have a complex form of diplomacy and law still not understood to this day, everyone is equal in their society
>white people come, take all the resources and knock down the buildings
>all they have left is mud and sticks to make houses out of
Yeah "great'.
I wonder if stormniggers realize how retarded they make themselves look when they justify this shit.

I'd like to see evidence for the massacre at the temple other than the account of some butthurt fray that is widely disputed and not taken as the official story.

kek

Nah, they were in the chalcolithic and early bronze age. Still superior to those lake-gods and hellas human sacrifice eurangutans from the bronze age.

>Rome of Mesoamerica
top kek, aztecs were too stupid to even invent a sword.

Incas had proto halberds.

And they were in the early bronze age.

Thus Amerindians are superior to europeans.

>the Incas
Incas were silly cowards, Pizarro beat their massive veteran armies with few guys in a afternoon.

>proto halberds
Aka the big stick

You forgot about the flying pyramids.

?
You mean the eurangutan killed unarmed drunk poisoned men and kidnapped the mongrel general self proclaimed Inca?

>has bronze proto halberd
Superior.
We all know Amerindians had a higher development rate compared to europeans. In other words they are superior. Time to deal with the facts, chimpie.

S U P E R I O R

'Colonialism' has become one of those words that are fucking meaningless anymore. It could be used in reference to anyone in any era.

Proper colonialism is tied to XIX Imperialism, and shouldn't be applied out of that specific historical context, just like Imperialism shouldn't refer to the fucking Macedonians f.i

One needs to distinguish between 'Colonialism' and 'Imperialism' as Historical Categories and as-broad, ever changing, discussable- Political Concepts.

>Superior
It wast superior in battle.

Battle of Cajamarca
Pizarro
Casualties and losses
one wounded

Incas
2,000 dead
5,000 taken prisoner

Decisive Spanish victory

We weren't even talking about Injuns you dumb spic.

>The marquis (Cortes) had to leave the city to see Narvaez and left don Pedro de Alvarado and other royal officials, among which was me, and 130 men to protect the city and Moctezuma and the treasure collected for Your Majesty. While the marquis was in the coast of the sea, engaged in combat against Narvaez, the city rebelled, and everyone in the region, declared a bloody war, and killed some of the Spanish and injured all of those of us who were there.
- Bernardino Vazquez de Tapia, Account of merits and services

>Seen by Motecsuma, lord and king of the land, the sudden departure of the captain Hernando Cortés to the port, some say he ordered to make war against don Pedro de Alvarado, who was left in charge as captain with 150 men. As he was detained, and in charge of Alvarado, some say that Motecsuma didn't order to attack but his men tried to take him out of prison; and the combat that Alvarado faced was very great, as was foretold by Botello.
- Francisco de Aguilar, Brief account of the conquest of New Spain, Fifth Journey

>Upon this it was resolved they should put Alvarado with the whole of his men to the sword, and liberate the monarch. The less doubt they had entertained of Narvaez's being able to defeat us, the more sure they made of carrying out their plan successfully. This Alvarado considered sufficient to justify the conduct he had pursued. Cortes then wished to know why he had fallen upon the Mexican chiefs while they were celebrating a feast?

>Because, replied Alvarado, he had been assured by two of the principal men of the town, by one of the high priests, and by other of the inhabitants, that the Mexicans intended falling upon him immediately after the feast had ended. But the Mexicans, interrupted Cortes, maintain that they had asked your permission to celebrate the feast, and that you granted their request!

>Alvarado could certainly not deny this, but assured him he had selected that opportunity to punish them that it might come the more unexpectedly, and strike the greater terror among them, and to anticipate them in their premeditated attack upon him.

- Bernal Diaz del Castillo, The True History of the Conquest of New Spain, Chapter CXXV

>Not a single source

You are using a single book as your source, I've seen more sources claim it was an armed rebellion that caused the fight. That there was a fight, I will not deny, that a massacre took place, this most actual historians don't believe.

>unarmed drunk poisoned men
>battle
Hmm?
Incas mowed the Amerindian lawn against eurangutans every battle. Yet eurangutan pestilence fucked over them.

Try again, monkey.
I just made an observation about Amerindians having a higher development rate compared to europeans. How is this hard to get?

>not a single argument

>You are using a single book as your source,
literally 3 different primary sources

>I've seen more sources claim it was an armed rebellion that caused the fight.
well fucking post them

Thats still skirmishes, gwot has lasted far longer than ww2 yet is not as deadly.

Back to /pol/ shitskin ramirez.

You mean Pachamama-skin. Earth-skin. Natural superiority-skin. Amerindian skin.

Amerindians had a higher development rate compared to europeans. Thus, Amerindians are superior to europeans. Face the facts, bonobo.

No i mean it looks like you pulled shit out of your ass and rubbed it all over yourself like you do with bad b8. Now back to /pol/ mutt.

So you agree with Amerindian superiority of skin, military and development rate?

Your skin is the same colour as my turds. You're like an anthropomorphic piece of poo that literally shitposts all day.

so....
whitebois have it coming then?

>human shit skin compared to bird shit skin
Amerindian superiority is demonstrated by all kinds of comparisons.
Try again, subhuman.

Bird shit is actually a mix of colours including black and some like geese and ducks shit brown. Also white people arent literally egg white, they're just light complexioned. Whereas you are literally the same colour as diarrhea. Cry more.

>metashitposting
quality thread