this region of mexico, or really everything north of former toltec territory had a similar role in mesoamerica to central asia in the old world. A conveyor belt of nomadic peoples migrating south, assimilating to nahua civilization and then being conquered again, or so the codexes tell us. We have the written and translated chronicles of the aztecs, their neighbours and their predecesors down to individual states, wars and rulers all the way to the 600s ADYou never hear about them for the same reason you dont know about the tribes preceding the dutch conquest of indonesia. It doesnt matter to your country, the only people bringing it up are nationalists from said country where they do, in fact, learn about them from school.The biggest problem with "aztec" chronicles isnt that they were burnt by the evil spanish for being pagan idolatry. Thats outstandingly retarded propaganda. The problem is we have multiple conflicting recountings of the same events translated into spanish by amerindians of different city states and even individual calpullis, wich were ethnic neighbourhoods within the settled cities wich had their own identity and incredibly biased recounting of history with obvious propaganda built to shit on each other as barbaric and chichimec where as THEIR tribe was actually monotheist before the spanish even arrived
>>18509506Mexico has a term for it, called "Chilangocentrismo" is that it's history and culture are often told exclusively from the perspective of Mexico city, thus history books tend to focus on the Aztecs only (and sometimes the Mayas and Olmec) at the expense of the other precolumbian people, and the Conquista is treated as having ended with the fall of Tenochtitlan, while ignoring the post 1821 military campaigns and expeditions.
What was happening in the Gulf of California, Baja California, etc.
tarascanxisters...will our day come?
