Posted on 08/22/2019 7:27:19 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
They also wiped them out because those Indians were Catholics - anti-clericalism being very much a “thing” among the early Protestant settlers of North America. (To be fair, the Spaniards did they same thing to the Protestant settlements that encroached onto their territory.) But the English settlers won out in the North and drove the Spaniards out. Those Indians of whom you speak turned out to be ‘collateral damage’.
Funny true story. My best friend’s wife’s father is from Argentine (and, at 92, is still going strong). Here was his take on the matter: Speaking disparagingly of Central Americans and Brazilians, he once told me: “They married their Indians - we Argentines wiped ours out!” *LOL*
The ignorance of true history sometimes astounds me and makes me shake my head in absolute disbelief. “God wills it” has killed more than any other statement ever made in history, yet it is not also a savage concept.
Replacing the mythology of the Noble Savage with the mythology of the Noble Hispanic fits the democrat population replacement agenda better.
Now we know where the meat for the original tacos came from. They didn’t have cows, pigs, chickens, goats, sheep or horses. They did have dogs and surplus people.
Much of what is taught about pre-Columbian native America is crap. It was a stone age world immersed in brutal Darwinian societies that were constantly at war with each other.
Regardless of motivation, getting rid of the Aztecs was a good thing. No peace with murder cults.
In hindsight, as human beings we are compelled to resist and dismantle inhuman anti-life cultures and cults. They are not in any way compatible with basic humanitarian concepts and anyone who sustains or participated in said abomination should be rehabilitated if possible, disabled from harming another human if not.
Cortez, though motivates by greed and lust did all of humanity this one favor in crushing the abomination of Aztec human sacrifice.
I say this with difficulty though, as in my own family many have ancestors who were slaughtered by the conquistadors when they brought the inquisition to the Americas.
That’s textbook tactics though. If you can’t overcome a superior force, ally with the minority faction and fight. The “stealing the flag” thing sounds a bit confabulated though.
No kidding
I think Pizzaro was 65
when he conquered the Incas.
7
With Cortez, there was nastiness on both sides.
Cortez had 1000s of Indian allies who hated the Aztecs so it wasn’t just him and a few caballeros.
Another interesting thing about the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs is a direct descendant of Montezuma survives to this day as part of the Spanish nobility. Also the Spanish ennobled several of the caciques of his Indian allies. Their descendants are also in today’s Spanish nobility.
Near as I can tell Pizarro wasn’t so accommodating!
Everthing was fine Before the White Man Came with their poisoned blankets and stuff and stolt all the land. But Cortez was HISPANIC so it’s really ok.
Duke of Moctezuma de Tultengo
Duke of Moctezuma de Tultengo (Spanish: Duque de Moctezuma de Tultengo) is a hereditary title of Spanish nobility held by a line of descendants of Emperor Moctezuma II, the ninth Tlatoani, or ruler, of Tenochtitlan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Moctezuma_de_Tultengo
Yeah. But remember, those Aztecs were quite caught up in their pagan religion
Thank you, will read with interest.
They were a tough bunch to be sure. Diaz talks of a "Captain Sandoval being wounded seven times but only one was serious, where air leaked from his chest."
Apparently the preferred method of treating wounds was to sear it first, then coat it with grease. After one battle, they ran out of grease, so they cut open some of the dead Indians and used their body fat instead.
Precisely so.
It was worse in Australia.
There, they were constantly at war with one another, but did not have agriculture, domestic animals (arguably, even their dogs were not domesticated, just camp followers), pottery,the bow, cloth, or any metal.
Not surprisingly, there was plenty of cannibalism. I think cannibalism was less prevalent in the Americas. It is very hard to measure. It was prevalent in Central and South America.
Pizzaro was Cortez’ second cousin. He learned from Cortez and was even more ruthless.
I wonder if Pizarro would have made the attempt without the example of Cortez?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.