Who was more culturally evil? The Aztec Empire or the Spanish Empire?
Cartel are proof that Aztec left behind evil legacy.
>>18379962Obviously the Aztecs. There is NOTHING the Spanish did to the Natives that the Natives would not have done to the Spanish, if given the chance. Enjoy your (You) for such a shitty question.
>>18379972OP doesn't even get a (You) though.
>>18379977He gets the one in the post text. Not every one can be a glutton for (You)s like (You)
>>18379962>Exploration is le EVIL>Being an advanced civilization is le EVILThis is your brain on lefrism
>>18379969If anything, the cartels exist because the Spanish failed to establish law and order without having to use excessive force or fear to subjugate their subjects. To this date, most Latin American countries have fear-based rather than guilt-based moral systems because the Spanish absolutely failed to impose intrinsic systems of pain and reward upon their subjects.The only people to ever succeed in changing the moral system of an ethno-cultural group were Irish monks in their Christianization of Anglo-Saxon England and their support in the Christianization of Scandinavia and pagan territories conquered by Charlemagne, for aside from that, no other group of people has ever succeeded at such a task.
>>18380072It's not fear, it's shame. And that classification is convoluted nonsense outside the narrow purview of Benedict's work anyway. Even within it's dubiously useful.
>>18379962>20,000 human sacrifices every yearHad the Spanish not conquered them, the Aztecs would've sacrificed 10.1 million people to their demonic sun god between 1521 and 2026. And the 20,000 per year is a conservative estimate.
>>18380154>And the 20,000 per year is a conservative estimate.Your basis for saying this is?
>>18379969>>18380072Whatever the Spanish did 220+ years ago is largely irrelevant and certainly less long lasting than genetics. The average Mexican is a mestizo hexadecaroon and virtually no Mexicans besides recent immigrants pass the one drop rule. If this does you a concern it is warranted as we can see throughout Mexican society and the effect of their genes have on their civilization.Like south Asians they love being low trust and love scams, yet they are also arbitrarily violent like those pit bull pups that keep eating each other in the cradle. This combined with conquistador racemixing rapist DNA, itself tainted by the moors, makes them marginally competent, enough to feign being a good citizen while white men are still more powerful and still have the potential to become assertive and defend themselves and their neighborhoods and families as they did in the past.They pose a profound threat to America on its border as well as the increasing fifth column who are fully into whitey-hating "democratic" socialism like the negro now and, yes, they are planning a takeover. They will use their vote in a democracy to violate the rights of their fellow white citizens and redistribute taxes and property to themselves, telling themselves it is "payback" for taking their land. Apparently being Nahua entitles them to Apache and Comanche land, o algo. Even going with their intergenerational revenge "ethics" there is no real justification, but of course they literally don't give a shit about morals or ethics. This is the real world after all, and of course they'll spring this on white Americans at a certain point, if they can restrain the urge to jump the gun. In many ways they already have, verbatim expressing their racial hatred towards "gringos" and hostile intentions. You will see all of this vindicated over the next 50 years of your life.Wave goodbye to a pleasant high trust community, wave goodbye to high civilization, I guess it's in China's hands now.
>>18379962Communism/Liberalism and Christianity are the exact same thingThey have the same fundamental neuroses and misunderstandings of how the world is
The "Aztec Empire" wasn't a single culture, I guess neither was the Spanish empire. So the actual question you're probably asking is which was more evil, the Mexica of Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco or the Spanish of Castile and AargonIn any case I think this is a stupid question thats inherently subjective, but here's my go at it, keeping in mind I'm more informed about the Mexica then I am the Spanish>The Mexica were militaristic expansionists that made conquests to acquire economic resources from subjects/vassals the backbone of their influence and economics>They were largely hands-off and loose in their rule, just demanding taxes of economic goods, labor, and other basic obligations, conquered states continued to self manage with their own laws and customs generally>They sacrificed likely hundreds to thousands of people a year, the plurality of which were captured enemy soldiers from wars of conquest, but also included some noncombatant slaves and "volunteers">Mexica society in Tenochtitlan was highly classist and somewhat sexist>The Spanish were militaristic expansionists that made conquests to acquire new lands to work to produce economic resources the backbone of their influence and economics>Their political strategies varied from being hands off, sometimes keeping local rulers in power, other times instituting direct rule, even sometimes instating racial caste systems or mass slavery and displacement>launched mass inquisitions, doing large scale cultural eradication and re-education and at times executed people for religious reasons, though the actual total of such executions is apparently rather low, I've heard only around 3000 people across a few centuries, though that may just be within the Spanish mainland IIRC? Not sure>I don't know about how free society was domestically for people of lower classes, in terms of social mobility, or for women, though my impression from the sources I have read is that Spanish women had it worse then Aztec women1/?
>>18380578cont:Basically, I think it comes down to what you think is worse, doing large scale religious killings every year like the Mexica, or often (though not always) doing large scale slavery and hands on imperialistic rule and control over the places you conquered that ended up killing a large amount of people anyways like the SpanishPersonally I don't think either 500 year old military empire has particularly high moral ground here. >>18380154>>18380447The Mexica in Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco were probably not sacrificing 20,000 people a year.That number comes from Zumarraga, the head Spanish inquisitor in Mexico, so he had a bias and is probably unreliable here, though I suppose you could argue he'd be in a position to have expertise on the issue.In any case, it's bullshit because that was him talking about the amount of sacrifices across roughly all of Mesoamerica sans the Maya regions, more or less, not just for the Mexica. 20,000 sacrifices a year more then half the region really isn't that much in the grand scheme of things, that means individual towns or cities might have only been sacrificing a few people a year, in the single digits. If anything I think this is a rather low, though not a totally implausible estimate.Conversely, he was also IIRC specifically talking about child sacrifices, which would make the actual sacrifice totals much higher here, though then the assumed total sacrifice rate is so high as to make the figure unbelievable: We know from the Huey Tzompantli, the Great Skull rack of Tenochtitlan, that at least there around 5% of deposited skulls were children, so using that ratio, that would mean there would be 400,000 sacrifices across the non maya regions of Mesoamerica a year if you take Zumarraga's figure at face value. That would mean your average town was sacrificing many dozens of people a year, which I think is reasonable for larger cities but not smaller towns and villages like that figure would likely require.2/?
>>18380589Cont:In short, 20,000 child sacrifices a year seems like an exaggeration even for that wider, all-of-mesoamerica-aside-from-the-maya grouping that IIRC Zumarraga was actually talking about.As far as the amount of people the Mexica specifically actually sacrificed a year, as I said in >>18380578, I think the figure is probably in the hundreds or thousands. The Huey Tzomnpantli seems to have held around 16,000 skulls (specifically the rack portion, there were also two adjacent skull towers which likely held a few thousand more), based on if you plug in the dimensions of the rack and pole spacing we know from excavations into earlier research like "Counting Skulls: Comment on the Aztec Cannibalism Theory of Harner‐Harris..." which was calculating the amount of skulls racks of different sizes could hold. We don't know how many years of deposits the Huey Tzompantli represents, but if you work off of a few variables (the amount of years the rack took to fill, what proportion of the city's sacrifices went into that rack vs had their skulls deposited elsewhere, etc), then a figure in the mid hundreds to the mid thousands seems the most plausible: EX if you assume the rack took a decade to fill, and the rack represents a full half of the city's sacrifices, then that would imply 3600 sacrifices a year. Not that there's a specific reason to think it took a decade to fill and it represents half the city's sacrifices, that's just an example.Hundred to thousands is an entire order of magnitude of wiggle room, but obviously there's a lot of ambiguity in the variables I outlined. What I do think it shows at least is that the Mexica were probably not sacrificing tens of thousands of people a year, certainly not many tens of thousands: It's quite unlikely IMO that an entire racks worth of skulls were being filled on an annual basisThere's more I could say but I ran out of space again and it's not enough to justify a 4th post so stopping here for now3/3
>>18379962aztecs were more bloody, but they practiced better hygeine
>>18379972To the Aztecs, sacrifice was considered honorable, the Spaniards weren't even worthy of sacrifice
>>18379969Indios today have nothing to do with the cartel you dumb tranny
>>18381354I mean that's not true, we know some Conquistadors that got captured after hostilities broke out ended up being sacrificed
