There are two things that are being pointed out, most of the time — the other is, that the ridiculous noble savage myth, which is sometimes morphed into the kumbaya tolerance fantasyland, is belied by the ethnic cleansing, continual warfare, and institutional human sacrifice. The first two happened throughout Precolumbian America, the last one is best known from Central and South America, but cannibalism and human sacrifice was practiced here and there all over.
The Aztecs believed that blood sacrifices were necessary to keep the Sun alive, the Mayans more generally thought blood sacrifices were needed to feed their deities. In the Andes (at least as far south as the Atacama) human sacrifice may have been the way the priests (a parasitic class in most societies) alleviated anxiety about regional crises.
Human sacrifice remains part and parcel of Islam, with the last known undisguised example dating to the 1930s I think. When a group of Islam-holes show up to a beheading and shout Allah Akbar as the victim becomes a two-piece, it’s simple to argue that it is human sacrifice in thin disguise.
The witch burnings in Germany came to an end a bit more than 200 years ago. The Salem witch trials didn’t result in any burnings at the stake, but the superstitious ignorant savages like Cotton Mather clamored for the blood of innocent neighbors. Eventually, years later, the main accuser recanted her testimony. That would have been a good time to kill one more, but instead, and perhaps unlike her victims, she probably has living descendants.
None of that was human sacrifice so much as it was witless demonology. Anyone who defends the Salem witch trials today should be burned at the stake, just to explain things to them, in a lesson they won’t live to profit from.
The Iliad has the well-known (probably fictional, but familiar enough to the original audience) human sacrifice of Iphigenia.
“That would have been a good time to kill one more, but instead, and perhaps unlike her victims, she probably has living descendants.”
Salem accuser. I believe she died childless and unmarried. (She threw one of her fits near a man walking who ignored her and walked on by. She got up went on with her day. ) Nobody would have her.
Not in every case, but in a lot of cases you were better to be a witch charged before an ecclesiastical court than a secular (town or province) court. They would examine and hold you for a while, Catacize you, and send you home. )
Interesting:
Snip.
....snip.....
Witches and Enchantresses
“One of the most important creators of the definition of a witch in Spain was St Isidor of Seville. He believed that there were not only witches, but also enchantresses, necromancers, hydromancers, fortune tellers, astrologists, and healers who used magic to help people. In many regions of Spain, witches were not as strongly punished as enchantresses. According to Salzar, the youngest of the three judges who worked in the Basque region at the beginning of the 17th century:
‘’The real question is: are we to believe that witchcraft occurred in a given situation simply because of what the witches claim? No: it is clear that the witches are not to be believed, and the judges should not pass sentence on anyone, unless the case can be proven with external and objective evidence sufficient to convince everyone who hears it. And who can accept the following: that a person can frequently fly through the air and travel a hundred leagues in an hour; that a woman can get through a space not big enough for a fly; that a person can make himself invisible’’.
(logic and reason!)