Posted on 04/18/2007 6:52:55 PM PDT by Dallas59
no, supporting the murderous Aztec civilization is looney. If you read “history of the conquest of mexico” by Prescott you will get a more honest picture of what happened. Prescott used actual manuscripts written by people who were there and he is not totally on the side of the spaniards. Cortes did the mexicans a huge favor and was diligent in rebuilding the war damage and instituting a noble religion aimed at the uplifting of all the people. Unlike the Aztecs who subjegated and took whom ever they pleased from the surrounding indian cities to have their hearts torn out of their bodies to please their god, ie, satan. It was also very clear that Cortes did not want to fight them but their own stubborn pride wouldn’t let them acknowledge a true religion and culture. They gave up their right to their culture by their human sacrifice. No doubt that Cortez was on a mission from God. Not saying that they were perfect...in war mistakes are made. But overall, considering the difficulty of the task, the spaniards were incredible along with their indian allies.
Your beloved book was written in 1843. Prescott lived from 1796 until 1859.
No one needs to buy it now. It is on the internet because it is that old.
I have read primary sources about this topic, and secondary sources, but not early 19th century secondary sources. This book of yours is not the last word. Scholars would mainly read it now for its historiographical interest.
I do not “support” the Aztecs. What would that even mean? It is not useful to judge ancient civilizations by the standards of modern morality.
The Aztec religion involved human sacrifice, but it was not devil worship. It was just a polytheistic religion.
Cortes was not a shrinking violet. Obviously he did want to fight them.
If he was on a mission from God, then God isn’t merciful.
Catholicism as practiced by Spanish conquistadors was not a very humane or nice religion.
Prescott wrote from primary sources. And God was very mercifull to motivate Cortez to christianize the craxy aztecs and uplift their whole civilization; risking life and limb and comfort. Sorry, but morality is the same throughout history as the conscience given to man is constant. If you think mass murder of innocents in the name of a god is not demonic then you need to wake up a bit. It was all motivated by the opposite of christianity...hate. The same hate that causes murders and violence today. You can try to sugar coat the aztecs religion but it just doesn’t work.
All historians use primary sources. The understanding of any historical subject has increased greatly since the 1840s. You should look into that. Maybe you should consider reading more than that one ancient book before you decide that you are an expert.
Naturally, Cortez became very rich in Mexico. He attributed his success to God and to his native mistress and translator, La Malinche (aka La Chingada, which means ‘what is f___ed’). She was one of twenty slavegirls distributed among the Spanish captains. Bernal Diaz del Castillo (the most important Spanish primary source, whom I have actually read) calls her D. Marina. He says that they couldn’t have done it without her. I think she did a lot to engineer the downfall of the Aztecs. She is a much more interesting figure than Cortez.
Lots of Christian fanatics have committed “mass murder in the name of a god,” including the Spanish conquistadors. Do you think that they are demonic? Who is sugar coating?
Popular morality is always changing. For instance, slavery was considered to be moral until people realized that it was immoral. Does that mean that everyone who owned slaves when slavery was commonplace was an evil person? In my opinion, no.
The farther south you went, the further you would stray from this truth and motive. But that would be another story of conquest and oppression.
the La Malinche name came from the Aztecs, not the Spaniards. Yes, her name was Marina. You are fairly interested in degrading Cortez...” what is ####ed”...please, that’s not what he called Marina. He wasn’t perfect but cared enough about people to overturn an evil civilization. And morality is not determined by popularity...our conscience gives it to us. No, not all slave holders were evil people....just caught up in an evil practise.
Btw, Prescott is a good a source as any on the history of the conquest as he spent years in writing it from many original manuscripts of that time. Have you read it? I don’t claim to be an expert but I can understand much from Prescott’s book. He was actually even handed and did write about conflicting motives of some of the Spaniards which Cortes had to deal with. Cortes already had considerable wealth before the journey and used it to supply his small army with. If you had put your life on the line the way he did of course you would expect some compensation after victory and success in rebuilding a much better Mexico. You don’t sound very honest in your perception of events for whatever reason. Maybe just mislead by politically correct teachings?
If you weren't supporting a connection between Carthaginians and the Maya, then what was the point of your post? And as you can see from the pictures, the two writing systems aren't similar.
Hopefully, the United States doesn’t engage in a policy of GENOCIDE against American Muslims in general—i.e. those who are not supporting islamofascism and are not a direct threat to this country.
There are still at least a few human sacrifices in Mexico A US college student (others as well, all adults I believe) was used as sacrifice by a group of Mexican drug dealers. It was supposed to protect them I forgot against what. Bullets?
I also don't accept the belief held by some Afrocentrists that black Africans got to Mexico and imparted their knowledge to the Olmecs.
The point of my original post was to call attention to some bizarre views held by one of the first Europeans to see the Maya ruins.
Marina wasn’t her real name either. The Spanish called her that. Malinche is probably closer. La Chingada is a ribald nickname.
All history uses on primary sources. That doesn’t distinguish Prescott. Maybe it is a good book, but it was written when Queen Victoria was a young girl. It wouldn’t be acceptable to cite Prescott in a scholarly paper.
Cortez rebuilt a better Mexico like the Allies rebuilt a better Dresden.
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.