Posted on 12/03/2001 11:18:01 AM PST by electron1
Then you have a problem with me. I don't feel the slightest embarrassment or guilt over the events you describe. I had nothing whatsoever to do with them as they took place before I was born.
I think many people just read and save a few posts that contain what appears to present an honest assessment whether gained by personal experience such as yours or well researched publications. Don't feel bad I've posted some comments that I thought were brilliant,witty and timely,as well as being factual and even asked questions and got nary a response. I just assume soneone out there in Freeperland will read it and start to change their thinking, or start to think. Some prepare the field,others plant,yet others water or weed and then someone,who to that point,hasn't lifted a finger,reaps and gets all the credit. Doesn't seem fair but its reality. So don't lose heart and when you have something interesting to say post it,I liked your post.
By the way, electron1; I read your reply to me, but their were so many good specific responses that by the time I read it, I figured you already had good info and didn't need any more input from me!! Let me know if it's otherwise...
Publius6961, I simply said that OVERSIMPLIFICATION is wrong, not judgement of other cultures. Anytime you oversimplify, you avoid information and discussion, and information is key to good judgment. All the different tribes and confederations have to be judged on their own merits, and you can't do that accurately if you gloss over the specifics regarding each unique group.
Environmentalists - don't make me laugh. Being dependent on local wildlife because you're to ignorant to invent agriculture does not make you an environmentalist.
This is what we are dealing with here. Did an attitude or idea that I picked up from a Navajo kid have it's root in ancient prehistory or did he pick it up last week standing in line at Walmart? Like you say it's complicated.
I read your post and thought it knowledgable and well written. I had no points to dispute so I did not respond. I just added it to the vast amount that I have read on the subject, reinforcing some of my own conclusions and leaving others open to question. Don't take lack of response as insult or dismissal.
Around 1,300, the tribe of Culhuacan, emerged as chief rival of the Tepanecas and sent an expedition to subdue the hated Aztecs mercenaries. Many Aztecs were slaughtered, and the defeated remnants of the tribe were herded back to Culhuacan as slaves. Later the Culhuacans sent the Aztecs into battle against the Xochimilcas, promising that if they triumphed, they were going to raise their status from slaves to mercenaries. The Aztecs crushed the Xochimilcas and brought back hundreds of enemy ears as trophies. Consequently the Aztec chief requested to be married to one of the daughters of the Calhuacan chief, Coxcoxtli, who complied in the hope of keeping the loyalty of the brutal Aztec mercenaries.
But the Aztecs, never had forgotten the massacre dealt them by the Calhuacans and their 25 years of servitude. When Coxcoxtli arrived at the foul-smelling, smoky, Aztec temple to witness his daughter’s wedding ceremony, a priest dressed in freshly flayed human skin greeted him. Only after his eyes had grown accustomed to the darkness of the temple did Coxcoxtli scream and recoil in horror; to see his own daughter’s skin draped around the priest. (Taken from La Capital, The Biography of Mexico City by Jonathan Kandell)
Here goes the fact vs. the myth of the “noble savage” concocted by J.J. Rousseau
As far as riches...yes they surely did raid amongst other Indian tribes but never referred to those they raided and killed as the same as "themselves" they were enemies. But perhaps you could learn about "giveaways". No they were not environmentalist in the sense of the word that has developed from the '60's. But they sure understood their environment which afforded them to live centuries off of a land that oft killed early Europeans who came here...they dealt with harsh winters, foraged for food, cultivated agriculture, irrigated deserts, and hunted.
That is essentially the point. When a society has five to six million square miles of resources to draw upon there is no need for environmentalist. Just how much asphalt do you think it took to pave an Indian village?
Are you judging the Indians hunting methods? When the white settlers set about to cross the vast plains of the midwest it was not unusual for them to write about their encounter with the buffalo. Some recorded buffalo herds of such a size as to hold up a wagon train for three days while herds numbering in the millions passed. I would say that neither Mother Nature's grass fires nor the Indians diminished the herds beyond what the prairie grass could support.
If this is your idea of despoiliation of the land then about the only thing we agree upon is that they were primitive peoples.
Point well taken, but normally I would post such a reply to the originator of the thread.
Since you did not address my response to you, am I to assume you didn't take issue with it?
-CD
So, basically, they were the neolithic equivalent to the aliens in the movie Independence Day.
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.