eiphaniel ری ٹویٹ کیا
This doesn’t even make sense. What a simplistic view. You can condemn sacrifice without turning Indigenous civilizations into cartoon villains.
The “Aztecs were barbaric so conquest was good” argument always collapses the second you apply the same standard evenly. Human sacrifice existed in Mesoamerica. It should be talked about honestly.
But Europeans arrived from a world of inquisitions, mass burnings, public torture, dynastic slaughter, religious wars, colonial extraction, and industrial-scale conquest. The idea that one side represented “civilization” and the other represented “savagery” is mostly hindsight propaganda. Guess the propaganda got to you.
Also, the “Bronze Age” framing barely works here. Makes me question your understanding of the Americas. Mesoamerican societies developed under completely different environmental and material conditions. They had no large draft animals and simply different metallurgy priorities. Different trade systems. Yet they still built massive cities, hydraulic engineering, aqueduct’s, astronomy, mathematics, calendars, causeways, market systems, and state networks that stunned Europeans on contact.
You don’t have to romanticize the Aztecs to admit the “primitive savage rescued by Europe” framing is historically shallow.
🇺🇸 The American Culturist 🇺🇸@MericaCulture
The great fallacy of cultural relativism is that its adherents believe the technological wonders of our modern world were always inevitable. They believe that Western Civilization (Christendom) pushed humanity forward purely by coincidence, rather than because of anything inherently valuable about it. They look at the barbaric tribes of Mesoamerica, such as the Aztecs, and assume they could have had a Central American Wakanda if not for those oppressive Europeans. In reality, there was a reason the Aztecs hadn't progressed even to the Bronze Age, and if the Europeans hadn't forced civilization upon them, they'd still be ripping out hearts and practicing cannibalism in demonic rituals.
English
