[dufekin]

Recent research shows that the Aztec civilization ultimately collapsed from cocolitzli, an indigenous (not an introduced) disease. Cortez might not have conquered the Aztecs (and certainly not so easily) if he hadn't spread smallpox first (although we don't exactly find him culpable for that) and if the Aztecs didn't revere him as a god. The Spanish only partially colonized their empire; therefore, many Mexicans have some Aztec, Mayan, or other Amerindian ancestry.

If Cortez hadn't come, the Aztec Empire might well have fallen victim to cocolitzli.

The Spanish invested their best medical resources to attempt in an attempt to save the natives from their disease. Because we really don't understand the disease (like we don't understand the Black Death strain of bubonic plague), we don't know how effective medieval Spanish medicine might have been (suffice it to say, it wasn't much more effective than the current campaign against Marburg in Angola, but given the state of European medicine in those days, the thought doesn't count for nothing). Perhaps the uninterpreted and undiscovered Aztec literature contains some clues as to the history and identity of this disease.

In your example, the Phoenician empire taught the Romans the importance of naval power. But yes, the sin of human sacrifice is evil, and the Spanish Christian missionaries definitely improved the place. But ignoring the existence and accomplishments of the Aztecs and Phoenicians because of their suicidal offerings to false gods would constitute historical revisionism. The Spanish likely did copy the Aztec farming technology and their slate of crops.

[walden]

I don't think we should ignore any part of history, but notice what I objected to in your original post-- your failure to mention that the civilization down south that used to exist and no longer does, the Aztecs, practiced HUMAN SACRIFICE. We should never ignore or gloss over such evil. Never.