Hopi Prophecy as part of class requirement

[justcharlie09]

Hi,

I'm a newbie, but I had to post this, because I'm curious about your thoughts on the topic.

Recently, in a class I took to finish out my degree we had to watch a series of videos on the Hopi Prophecy.

(It's on Youtube...Google New Mexico PBS Hopi Prophecy..can't post link)

Then we had a discussion in which everyone pretty much gushed about the spirituality and "naturalness" of the Native people vs. other (paler) cultures. It kind of rubbed me the wrong way, frankly.

This was my official discussion response:


The Hopi Prophecy video is actually one that I have seen before as it has circulated through environmentalist groups, permaculture fanatics and is especially popular among modern Luddites who consider technology the scourge of mankind. The video is interesting from an anthropological standpoint—clearly outlining the most “conservative” views of Hopi culture. However, I don’t find it any more agreeable to my own values than when I first encountered it. The inherent racism against those of non-Native lineage and drawing on the romantic notions of Noble Savage/Natural Man make the video somewhat offensive. Especially, as it essentially claims that all the “good” Hopi faction (and a marginal number of friends from outside their ethnic group/conservative belief system) will survive the apocalypse and the rest will perish.

The “prophecy” (like any prophecy) is a part of a strong cultural myth and narrative that is used to pass along “divine” information to the next generation of people. Myths and prophecies do not form in a vacuum, nor do they remain entirely untouched with the passage of time. My guess is that the Hopi Prophecy has such resonance with members of the Western world because of its echoes of apocalyptic archetypes found in Judeo-Christian religious consciousness. The end of the current world brought about by the vainglory and imprudent ways of foolish people who have disregarded the words of the divine Creator-God. It all sounds eerily familiar. I can’t help wondering how early interactions, however limited, with the Spanish missionaries, Mormons, and others of Judeo-Christian mindset might have shaped this particular interpretation of the Hopi Prophecy Rock petroglyph.

Not to belittle the common-sense call for cleaner technology and more eco-friendly ways, but a return to a preindustrial state would be catastrophic for most. The “conservative” Hopi ideal of abandoning modern education, medicine, and technology would spell suffering and death for a majority of the globe’s 6 billion-strong human population. Requiring everyone to live off the land with a planting stick and pouch of corn would reduce the human life span dramatically as well—forget an average life ending at eighty years, the new norm would probably fall closer to thirty or forty years at a maximum (references 1&2 see below).

I will say, though not an atheist myself, I do appreciate the work of the James Randi Educational Foundation. As Mr. Randi himself might say, this video seems to have come down with a bad case of woo-woo and could have used a little more balance in its presentation. I would have liked to know more about this “illegitimate” Tribal Council, other community members, and their views on the same issues broached by the traditionalists in the video.

Certainly, the US should strive to respect the Hopi people as well as their mineral and land rights, but that is a secular battle. It should be waged on secular and legal terms if it is to have any chance of success in the modern world. I feel the same way about any land dispute involving mineral rights, environmental degradation, and injustice. Evoking supernatural consequences does nothing to add to the argument and renders valuable pieces of information from within the argument easily dismissible as superstitious nonsense.

It is doubtful that Peabody Energy would be worried about stern judgments handed down by Masauwu as much as they would worry about losing profits through sanction by the United States judicial system. In this, it seems the Hopi people need to use education, the court of public opinion, and the legal system as a defense against abuse of their people and their lands—rather than old stones, and an appeal to woo-woo. The matter of Black Mesa, it would seem, should go to the district courts—perhaps landing, one day, at the Supreme Court. But, that appears unlikely given the deep, century-old divide among members of the Hopi, themselves (reference 3 see below).



Too harsh?

Why do people readily accept prophesies like this form certain ethnic groups (Mayans, Hopis, other Native people)? Does anyone REALLY believe the world would REALLY be better if we all just ran around with a planting stick and a bag of seeds?

[Cainkane1]

With all respect due to a culture that was destroyed and mistreated beyond my ability to propert imagine this is horse manure. Once when I was a kid I read a science fiction story about what would have happened to Europeans had the Indians had the technology to invade the old world and it wasn't pretty. Judging by the way they often treated each other they weren't any better than anyone else in the moral sense of the word.

[madurobob]

Welcome aboard, justcharlie09


Too harsh?
Perhaps just a tad, but not too bad. The opening paragraph was a bit harsh with its references to "fanatics" and "luddites" that I think weren't necessary to make your point. But, overall I'd give it good marks.

Does anyone REALLY believe the world would REALLY be better if we all just ran around with a planting stick and a bag of seeds?

Sadly, yes. I have met them before.

ETA: Weren't the Hopi linked to human sacrifice and ritualistic cannibalism in some recent research?

[justcharlie09]

Welcome aboard, justcharlie09


Perhaps just a tad, but not too bad. The opening paragraph was a bit harsh with its references to "fanatics" and "luddites" that I think weren't necessary to make your point. But, overall I'd give it good marks.



Sadly, yes. I have met them before.

ETA: Weren't the Hopi linked to human sacrifice and ritualistic cannibalism in some recent research?


Thanks, sorry, I didn't mean to sound harsh. That is the first place I encountered the video because the eco-fanatics I ran across were very much anti-modern-civilization. Many were openly hoping that a large portion of the human race would die off to save the poor endangered species. Modern civilization isn't the scourge of the planet. Actually, the more we know and the better the tech the cleaner the tech. Let's not forget it wasn't that long ago that people dumbed sewage in the same place as their source of drinking water. :)

It made me really quite angry. Then, the unquestioning love for all things "Native" and lack of historical knowledge or perspective also really got under my skin w/ the same group. So, when I saw this in class I kind of blew a fuse. :eye-poppi

I don't know about ritual cannibalism, but human sacrifice is not unheard of in the history of Amerindians. It is believed that some tribes of the Pacific Northwest killed slaves at potlach ceremonies. Now, there is some thought that the Anasazi who are Hopi ancestors ate Long Pig, but that is likely to have been a necessity due to scarcity. Many humans become cannibals in times of scarce resources for survival--ugly, but true. Not unheard of among most animals, either.

I just get really irritated when people go "Oooh, natives are so natural and in touch with the environment!" No, they're people, too. Not mystics in touch with Beyond the Beyonds. They're just people no more deserving of our credulity than any Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu, or Jew.

It is horrible what Spaniards and other Europeans did to them, but it's not unique in history. Most conquered people don't fare well. Humans have a tendency to be brutal when placed in positions of authority over others whether they're white, black, pink, purple, or orange. Just think of the Milgram Experiment!

[justcharlie09]

With all respect due to a culture that was destroyed and mistreated beyond my ability to propert imagine this is horse manure. Once when I was a kid I read a science fiction story about what would have happened to Europeans had the Indians had the technology to invade the old world and it wasn't pretty. Judging by the way they often treated each other they weren't any better than anyone else in the moral sense of the word.

Sounds like an interesting story! Probably very true. As I mentioned before, the Milgram Experiment says everything I think we need to know about humanity.

I've said to my kids many, many times when they say something about Nazis or other groups being Evil with a big E... It's not that the Nazis were evil, it's that we ALL have the capacity to be Nazis. To be unique in this world is to be humane and compassionate even when it isn't popular and even when it may get you killed.

Natives aren't holy and better than everyone else just because they're natives...anymore than Christians or any other group are better because that's what they call themselves.

I got into an argument along these lines with a Bible-thumper acquaintance of mine who kept going to the hoary argument that Stalin was an atheist and Mao was an atheist and therefore atheism kills. I told him, if that's how you're going to talk to people a) they're not going to listen to you and you're going to make Christianity look even worse than it already does to many people b) you're going to get bitch-slapped with the facts/figures from the many wars fought in the name of God/Country.

That went over really well...

[madurobob]

I don't know about ritual cannibalism, but human sacrifice is not unheard of in the history of Amerindians. It is believed that some tribes of the Pacific Northwest killed slaves at potlach ceremonies. Now, there is some thought that the Anasazi who are Hopi ancestors ate Long Pig, but that is likely to have been a necessity due to scarcity. Many humans become cannibals in times of scarce resources for survival--ugly, but true. Not unheard of among most animals, either.
Ahah- that was it, I saw a documentary several years ago apparently based on the work of Christy Turner (http://www.amazon.com/Man-Corn-Cannibalism-Prehistoric-Southwest/dp/087480566X). His claim was that a group of Aztec natives came up from Mexico and introduced ritual cannibalism to the Anasazi. The evidence is certainly there: human heads neatly cut open and cooked, human bones neatly butchered and cooked, etc...

It is horrible what Spaniards and other Europeans did to them, but it's not unique in history.
Damn right. Even the noble natives of the Americas are known to have been brutal conquerors. What the Spanish did was perhaps mild in comparison to the Aztec and Mayan treatment of those they conquered.

[Niggle]

Heh. I've had people wax lyrical on me about how wonderful things would be if we all just went back to a simpler way of life. In particular, one guy was ranting about it during a gathering of medieval-fantasy (read: D&D-type, pre-LARP) recreation enthusiasts. I pointed out that he wouldn't be talking to me if we did. He looked puzzled. I told him that I'd never have survived childhood, having had croup twice before I was a year old, strep throat four times and scarlet fever once as a four-year-old, and chicken pox around the same time. Considering that this was just after my mother had come home from a five-month hospital stay for a liver transplant, I thought it a little cruel, but I did point out that my mother would certainly have been dead, too.

He had the good grace to look horrified; he'd never properly considered the repercussions of what he was proposing. He apologized profusely, then acknowledged that he, too, would most likely be dead already (I think he mentioned a ruptured appendix).

I wonder if these people have thought this through. Or if they really don't care. Probably not, but their story would almost certainly change once they were forced to actually go through with it (the first time one of them needed an emergency operation for an appendix, or antibiotics for a serious infection, or reconstructive surgery for a mangled arm).

[justcharlie09]

Ahah- that was it, I saw a documentary several years ago apparently based on the work of Christy Turner. His claim was that a group of Aztec natives came up from Mexico and introduced ritual cannibalism to the Anasazi. The evidence is certainly there: human heads neatly cut open and cooked, human bones neatly butchered and cooked, etc...


Damn right. Even the noble natives of the Americas are known to have been brutal conquerors. What the Spanish did was perhaps mild in comparison to the Aztec and Mayan treatment of those they conquered.

I read this book called Buried Soul by Timothy Taylor a while back. I found it an interesting, if macabre, read. He made some mention of how people really don't like to toss around cannibalism anymore--especially since it has been used as a popular way of attacking other cultures as "less human", etc.

Me? I have no doubt that ritual cannibalism has taken place in history--both as a way of honoring the dead, and as a way of capturing the "powers" of enemies. I don't think it was a regular menu item, though, in anything but the harshist of times.

But, I'm sure cannibalism, in a PC world will always be a big topic of debate for anthropologists and archeologists.

[justcharlie09]

Heh. I've had people wax lyrical on me about how wonderful things would be if we all just went back to a simpler way of life. In particular, one guy was ranting about it during a gathering of medieval-fantasy (read: D&D-type, pre-LARP) recreation enthusiasts. I pointed out that he wouldn't be talking to me if we did. He looked puzzled. I told him that I'd never have survived childhood, having had croup twice before I was a year old, strep throat four times and scarlet fever once as a four-year-old, and chicken pox around the same time. Considering that this was just after my mother had come home from a five-month hospital stay for a liver transplant, I thought it a little cruel, but I did point out that my mother would certainly have been dead, too.

He had the good grace to look horrified; he'd never properly considered the repercussions of what he was proposing. He apologized profusely, then acknowledged that he, too, would most likely be dead already (I think he mentioned a ruptured appendix).

I wonder if these people have thought this through. Or if they really don't care. Probably not, but their story would almost certainly change once they were forced to actually go through with it (the first time one of them needed an emergency operation for an appendix, or antibiotics for a serious infection, or reconstructive surgery for a mangled arm).

I would be dead, myself. So would at least one of my children. Hooray for modern medicine (even with all of its flaws)!

I hate to be a jerk, but the first time I watched this video I thought to myself:

"I don't think I'd like to live his planting stick way. I like the health benefits of a diverse diet--not to mention having all of my teeth."

Why is modernity cast as such a BAD thing? I'm fine with developing clean-tech and giving Native peoples their mineral rights (they need them to take care of their own populations & it is only fair play)...I just don't get this whole "evils of the modern life" meme. Really, things are pretty good. The more technologically advanced and the more prosperity spreads to poor people around the world--the better off we all are!!!

[Piscivore]

I would be dead, myself. So would at least one of my children.

Likewise.

Welcome, Charlie! I think we're lucky to have you, going by this first thread.

[Beanbag]

There was a documentary series on PBS -- I think it was Making Sense of the Sixties -- that talked with some of the back-to-earth movement "flower children." I recall one of the women talking about how they thought it was going to be so great. Instead, it was babies crying constantly, short food, people getting sick from poor sanitation (the comment was flies walking through the outhouse, then on the food), everyone being crowded and dirty, and generally miserable. The lady said, "no one told us it was going to be so HARD."

Even allowing for the "stupid city kids" factor, it drives home the point that going back to nature like the Indians is a hard-scrabble, hand-to-mouth lifestyle.

Beanbag

[Nosi]

"Our tech's too hot for the poor widdle nature to handle....Booo hooo!"

"Um....what's that green thing growing in that crack in your butter smooth $2000 driveway?"

(The following cannot be published as this forum would need to be washed with soap)

[madurobob]

Me? I have no doubt that ritual cannibalism has taken place in history--both as a way of honoring the dead, and as a way of capturing the "powers" of enemies. I don't think it was a regular menu item, though, in anything but the harshist of times.

Hard to say. Turner's book outlined a lot of evidence, and more has been added in the intervening years. The sheer volume of evidence suggests cannibalism wasn't just a food source of last resort during extreme hardship. There was something more to it.

[fuelair]

Know how to go back to nature for emergencies - then avoid it like the Plague (or you may well get the Plague).


And, welcome in justcharlie - I think you will do well here!!

[shadron]

Why is modernity cast as such a BAD thing? I'm fine with developing clean-tech and giving Native peoples their mineral rights (they need them to take care of their own populations & it is only fair play)...I just don't get this whole "evils of the modern life" meme. Really, things are pretty good. The more technologically advanced and the more prosperity spreads to poor people around the world--the better off we all are!!!

The most usual reason is because then they would not have to worry about change and the disruption it causes in their lives. It is beyond imagining to me that someone would want to die in exactly the same social state they were born into, never having moved 20 miles in any one direction, that they would have spent their life doing the same identical thing everyday for that whole time, and the only relief from the tedium is the deprecations of age and invasion. And yet countless human lives have been spent that way.

They also see themselves as being the noble corn planters, and never as a member of the 99+% of all humans that would necessarily have to face total nothingness, death, in order to make their scratching a viable mode of life.

[justcharlie09]

Likewise.

Welcome, Charlie! I think we're lucky to have you, going by this first thread.

Thanks, hoping to have lots of good discussions. It's refreshing to talk about this somewhere where folks aren't kissing up to the anthropology prof for grades :D

That's probably the main reason for waxing poetic on the part of the students. That and it's easier to be PC anyway.

[justcharlie09]

Hard to say. Turner's book outlined a lot of evidence, and more has been added in the intervening years. The sheer volume of evidence suggests cannibalism wasn't just a food source of last resort during extreme hardship. There was something more to it.

That may well be the case. Don't some apes regularly hunt other primates for food? I can see it happening. I wouldn't want to see it happening, I mean, but I can certainly see it happening in human society somewhere in history.

[justcharlie09]

Know how to go back to nature for emergencies - then avoid it like the Plague (or you may well get the Plague).


And, welcome in justcharlie - I think you will do well here!!

What's a little plague in comparisson to saving the polar bears and butterflies?

:)

Just kidding, of course. I'm all for clean tech, forget the Luddites.

[justcharlie09]

The most usual reason is because then they would not have to worry about change and the disruption it causes in their lives. It is beyond imagining to me that someone would want to die in exactly the same social state they were born into, never having moved 20 miles in any one direction, that they would have spent their life doing the same identical thing everyday for that whole time, and the only relief from the tedium is the deprecations of age and invasion. And yet countless human lives have been spent that way.

They also see themselves as being the noble corn planters, and never as a member of the 99+% of all humans that would necessarily have to face total nothingness, death, in order to make their scratching a viable mode of life.

Probably the same people who read The Road and thought "Wow, what fun!"

It seems like kind of a fear reaction to change, for sure. "I can't handle this and I don't know how to fix technological problems so...we have to go back to something simple!"

It's like the cultural equivalent of the fetal postion.

[Nosi]

As it is many modern societies (despite the extinction of some very beautiful but specialized creatures) are only just keeping Mother Nature away with the handle of a mop. In the case of New Orleans, it isn't working too well...Katrina wasn't a man made phenomenon.

[justcharlie09]

As it is many modern societies (despite the extinction of some very beautiful but specialized creatures) are only just keeping Mother Nature away with the handle of a mop. In the case of New Orleans, it isn't working too well...Katrina wasn't a man made phenomenon.

I also watched "Broken Rainbow" (the 80's documentary) for this class (not required, but as part of research). Martin Sheen narrated very gravely that the "white man" sought to "control" nature...as if this was an entirely bad thing? It showed a train bustling along in black and white along with this statement. Look! Evil transportation of people and goods! How dare they!

Of the many faults one could point to in Western culture, the interest in innovation isn't one of them. Last time I checked, the ability to adapt to change was kind of a good thing about being human.

And no, Katrina was not "man made"...it was definitely man vs. nature where nature came in 5 to 0. That would be like saying the great San Francisco earthquake of the early 20th century was "man made".

[Alt+F4]

What the Spanish did was perhaps mild in comparison to the Aztec and Mayan treatment of those they conquered.

Evidence?

The generally accepted number of native people in the western hemisphere before 1492 is estimated to be about 40 million. If you take the conserative estimate that half of them were killed by massacre and disease that leaves you with 20 million deaths.

The Aztec empire lasted for less than 200 years. Where's the evidence that they killed more than 20 million people? As for the Maya, we know even less about them.

And speaking of the treatment of conquered people, here's the eyewitness account of the actions of conquistadors in Hispanola in the 1540s:

They attacked the towns and spared neither the children nor the aged nor pregnant women nor women in childbed, not only stabbing them and dismembering them but cutting them to pieces as if dealing with sheep in the slaughter house. They laid bets as to who, with one stroke of the sword, could split a man in two or could cut off his head or spill out his entrails with a single stroke of the pike. They took infants from their mothers' breasts, snatching them by the legs and pitching them headfirst against the crags or snatched them by the arms and threw them into the rivers, roaring with laughter and saying as the babies fell into the water, "Boil there, you offspring of the devil!" Other infants they put to the sword along with their mothers and anyone else who happened to be nearby. They made some low wide gallows on which the hanged victim's feet almost touched the ground, stringing up their victims in lots of thirteen, in memory of Our Redeemer and His twelve Apostles, then set burning wood at their feet and thus burned them alive. To others they attached straw or wrapped their whole bodies in straw and set them afire. With still others, all those they wanted to capture alive, they cut off their hands and hung them round the victim's neck, saying, "Go now, carry the message," meaning, Take the news to the Indians who have fled to the mountains.

http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/bdorsey1/41docs/02-las.html

[Mr. Skinny]

I will say, though not an atheist myself, I do appreciate the work of the James Randi Educational Foundation.
Though you didn't say it specifically, this sentence implies that the JREF is an atheist organization. It isn't.

Enjoyed the rest of the essay though.

ETA: Forgot to welcome you to the forum. So, er, Welcome!

[justcharlie09]

Evidence?

The generally accepted number of native people in the western hemisphere before 1492 is estimated to be about 40 million. If you take the conserative estimate that half of them were killed by massacre and disease that leaves you with 20 million deaths.

The Aztec empire lasted for less than 200 years. Where's the evidence that they killed more than 20 million people? As for the Maya, we know even less about them.

And speaking of the treatment of conquered people, here's the eyewitness account of the actions of conquistadors in Hispanola in the 1540s:

[/SIZE][/FONT]

http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/bdorsey1/41docs/02-las.html

Well, they certainly did their share of killing, conquering, and heart-ripping-out ceremonies. The Aztec, and other groups were known not to be a friendly bunch (anymore than the Spanish).

yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1999/2/99.02.01.x.html

(can't post links yet, that's as close as I can get--sorry)

None of that justifies what the Spanish did at the time. Especially, when they brought the Inquisition with them to a new land. Really we should look on history and try very hard not to repeat it. Whether we're avoiding the Spanish Inquisition or avoiding sacrificing human hearts to a sun god.

All the same, it is hard for me to see this in any other light than "people are brutal". The larger the population, the more sought after the resources, the bloodier the whole mess becomes. Add to that, the fact that the Pope didn't even get around to issuing a papal bull declaring the "indians" as human until somewhere in the 17th century, and you just have a recipe for disaster.

I wouldn't want to have lived in either society. The fact that Spaniards took full advantage of the weapons at their disposal without regard for the human consequences strikes me as pretty typical of most people throughout history.

[madurobob]

Evidence?

The generally accepted number of native people in the western hemisphere before 1492 is estimated to be about 40 million. If you take the conserative estimate that half of them were killed by massacre and disease that leaves you with 20 million deaths.

The Aztec empire lasted for less than 200 years. Where's the evidence that they killed more than 20 million people? As for the Maya, we know even less about them.
Sorry, its not about quantity, it's about quality. Note I didn't say anything about the scale, I mentioned the specific treatment. Conquerors throughout history have killed large numbers of those they conquered. How many, though, practiced human sacrifice and ritual cannibalism on the conquered?

And speaking of the treatment of conquered people, here's the eyewitness account of the actions of conquistadors in Hispanola in the 1540s:

[/SIZE][/FONT]

http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/bdorsey1/41docs/02-las.html
All that is certainly brutal. Add to that ritual sacrifice at the temple and cannibalism and you have the Aztec treatment.

Evidence you ask?
Link (http://www.worldmuseumofman.org/aztec1.htm)
There are ample written records of every form of torture having been performed by the Aztecs on their captors. Suffice it to say, the true Aztec way of life can best be summed up as far EXCEEDING the gore and brutality of the most despicably violent Hollywood 'slasher' horror films ever made. The methods in which they routinely mutilated, sacrificed and ate the remains of men and women are almost too gruesome to write but it was the torture and gory sacrifice of innocent crying children (purchased from willing parents) ranging in age from three years to seven years old that must have been too much to bear for the European explorers to witness much less tolerate. The codices that recorded the events of Spanish contact repeatedly document the demand of Spanish to end the human sacrifices that the Aztecs committed before them.

[justcharlie09]

Though you didn't say it specifically, this sentence implies that the JREF is an atheist organization. It isn't.

Enjoyed the rest of the essay though.

ETA: Forgot to welcome you to the forum. So, er, Welcome!

Sorry, didn't mean it that way. Originally I said James Randi specifically and then switched to JREF but then forgot to edit :o . James Randi is an atheist, among many atheists I like such as: Carl Sagan, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett. On points where I agree, I agree with them very strongly.

Just trying to give an accurate picture of where I'm at with things--which is really in the middle of the road.

As far as native beliefs go, they are entitled to their way of looking at the world. BUT, my beef with this video is the whole prophecy-woo-woo bit as a reason to settle a dispute over mineral rights.

That, and this is a PBS video supporting only one point of view. What's the history of the stick-figures on the rock? Have there been other interpretations? What does the Tribal Council say in its defense? What do the rest of the Hopi think? Balance out the woo-woo and propaganda with something substantial.

ETA: Thanks for the welcome :)

[One Skunk Todd]

I also watched "Broken Rainbow" (the 80's documentary) for this class

Out of curiosity, what class was it? I missed it if you mentioned it elsewhere in the thread.

[justcharlie09]

Sorry, its not about quantity, it's about quality. Note I didn't say anything about the scale, I mentioned the specific treatment. Conquerors throughout history have killed large numbers of those they conquered. How many, though, practiced human sacrifice and ritual cannibalism on the conquered?


All that is certainly brutal. Add to that ritual sacrifice at the temple and cannibalism and you have the Aztec treatment.

Evidence you ask?
Link (http://www.worldmuseumofman.org/aztec1.htm)

I can't imagine what the Spanish thought when they landed on those shores (or vice versa). You just really can't pick out a good vs. evil narrative with the arrival of Europeans in the Americas. That's the way I see it. I feel the same way about slavery in history. Killing and slavery are obvious "evils" but it's hard to say that X group was evil and deserved to be eradicated. There's just too much evidence to support the general insanity and brutality of the human race--in general--to pick a side.

The best you can really do is say, "Well, we should never do THAT again." But, saying all Aztecs or all Spaniards were evil is just not something I can do with any kind of certainty.

[justcharlie09]

Out of curiosity, what class was it? I missed it if you mentioned it elsewhere in the thread.

An anthropology class on native cultures to finish out my cultural awareness credit for my b.s. in psych.

I like the professor, by the way. The class wasn't bad, but the "discussion" board fell flat. Lots of people just being pc to pass the time or kissing up. Really, a let down for me, because I would have liked more depth in the conversation...than "wow, those poor natives" or "wow, those natives sure knew a lot about the environment and weren't they cool".

[Alt+F4]

Evidence you ask?
Link (http://www.worldmuseumofman.org/aztec1.htm)

Yes, evidence. Who is John McNamara and what is the World Museum of Man? Why no footnotes or bibliography? To which codices and/or eyewitness is he referring to? What the heck does the paragraph below mean (from that same page)?

What the Spaniards saw in the Aztec society was beyond anything they could have ever seen in their former experiences - a true hell and evil that was even darker than what the Gospels had described. Because of this, the destruction of all traces of Aztec society by Cortes and his army was so complete and effective.

So the Aztec were "evil" and that's why Cortes' conquest was successful?

[madurobob]

Yes, evidence. Who is John McNamara and what is the World Museum of Man?
Why does it matter? Do you dispute the information?

Would you prefer The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6846540.ece) instead?

The fine new exhibition at the British Museum, Moctezuma, is a reminder of one of our most fondly held stereotypes: the noble savage confronted by the cruel Spanish conquistador.

...

Tlacaelel was long departed by the time the conquistadors arrived, but his baleful legacy of a theocracy driven by fear and bloodshed lived on. If anything, Moctezuma had increased the life-and-death power of the emperor over his subjects. In that sense, Cortés’s arrival to bring about “regime change” was arguably one of the best things that ever happened to Mexico, even if the Spaniards were often brutal in their own turn and brought disease with them. No wonder that so many of the tribes under Aztec domination collaborated with Cortés to defeat Moctezuma, the Aztec dictato

[madurobob]

The best you can really do is say, "Well, we should never do THAT again." But, saying all Aztecs or all Spaniards were evil is just not something I can do with any kind of certainty.

Oh, I fully agree. But to suggest the Spaniards were evil conquerors who brutalized an innocent population is far from honest. The Spaniards treated the Aztecs no worse, and perhaps less brutally than the Aztecs treated those they conquered.

[justcharlie09]

Oh, I fully agree. But to suggest the Spaniards were evil conquerors who brutalized an innocent population is far from honest. The Spaniards treated the Aztecs no worse, and perhaps less brutally than the Aztecs treated those they conquered.

It's a very PC thing to express shock and horror at the Spaniards and say, in essence, "Oh the poor natives!" Poor natives my foot. Both sides were awful.

I call BS on the whole thing, personally. People vs. people doing horrible things to each other to the extent their technology allowed. No more, no less.

Any moaning and groaning about either Aztecs or Spaniards falls on deaf ears w/ me. It's history. Try to understand it and not repeat it. That's all.
:)

[Lucian]

Hard to say. Turner's book outlined a lot of evidence, and more has been added in the intervening years. The sheer volume of evidence suggests cannibalism wasn't just a food source of last resort during extreme hardship. There was something more to it.

I believe there has been a big split among some cultural anthropologists, forensic anthropologists and archeologists since William Arens published The Man-Eating Myth: Anthropology and Anthropophagy in 1979. He noted that many of the stories of cannibalism were dubious and used to justify all sorts of bad behavior on the part of the "civilized" Europeans. Fair enough. However, since then, some cultural anthropologists have thrown a fit any time anyone mentions ritual cannibalism (Arens himself is not quite so dogmatic). They are wont to say that ritual cannibalism is a lie used to libel the Other. Always. The problem is that archeologists and forensic anthropologists keep finding concrete evidence of ritual cannibalism.

[justcharlie09]

I believe there has been a big split among some cultural anthropologists, forensic anthropologists and archeologists since William Arens published The Man-Eating Myth: Anthropology and Anthropophagy in 1979. He noted that many of the stories of cannibalism were dubious and used to justify all sorts of bad behavior on the part of the "civilized" Europeans. Fair enough. However, since then, some cultural anthropologists have thrown a fit any time anyone mentions ritual cannibalism (Arens himself is not quite so dogmatic). They are wont to say that ritual cannibalism is a lie used to libel the Other. Always. The problem is that archeologists and forensic anthropologists keep finding concrete evidence of ritual cannibalism.

Red flags raise in my mind whenever someone with -ologist after their name throws out the words "always" or "never". Just because it has been used as libel doesn't mean the practice itself never existed--same goes for human sacrifice.

[Alt+F4]

Why does it matter? Do you dispute the information?

Would you prefer The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6846540.ece) instead?

Again, not evidence. You have linked to a review of a museum exhibit. No references, no sources.

Bernal Diaz del Castillo, one of Cortez's conquistadors, wrote that he witnessed the human sacrifices of Spaniard at the great pyramid in Tenochtitlan, yet there was no way he could have seen that, having already fled the city. He also almost always insisted that outrages against civilians were committed by their Indian allies and not the conquestadors.

No one is disputing that human sacrifice took place in the Aztec empire, but keep in mind that the conquistadors had a lot to gain by portraying the Aztecs as evil, sadistic baby-killers. Why do you think so few of the codices survived and that the Codex Florentine, that does mention human sacrifice was compiled by a Spaniard?

[justcharlie09]

Again, not evidence. You have linked to a review of a museum exhibit. No references, no sources.

Bernal Diaz del Castillo, one of Cortez's conquistadors, wrote that he witnessed the human sacrifices of Spaniard at the great pyramid in Tenochtitlan, yet there was no way he could have seen that, having already fled the city. He also almost always insisted that outrages against civilians were committed by their Indian allies and not the conquestadors.

No one is disputing that human sacrifice took place in the Aztec empire, but keep in mind that the conquistadors had a lot to gain by portraying the Aztecs as evil, sadistic baby-killers. Why do you think so few of the codices survived and that the Codex Florentine, that does mention human sacrifice was compiled by a Spaniard?


There's a definite benefit to the Spaniards calling them baby-killers. But, that doesn't mean they weren't human sacrificers. As for evidence, I can't post links, and I'm not as familiar with the evidence for Aztec as Inca sacrifices.

Still, the Inca (Aztec contemporaries) did leave mummies behind as examples of their sacrifices. The worst I could say about the Spaniards would be 1) they my have exaggerated the facts of an otherwise real occurence 2) they probably used it as an excuse for further brutality.

[madurobob]

Again, not evidence. You have linked to a review of a museum exhibit. No references, no sources.

Bernal Diaz del Castillo, one of Cortez's conquistadors, wrote that he witnessed the human sacrifices of Spaniard at the great pyramid in Tenochtitlan, yet there was no way he could have seen that, having already fled the city. He also almost always insisted that outrages against civilians were committed by their Indian allies and not the conquestadors.

No one is disputing that human sacrifice took place in the Aztec empire, but keep in mind that the conquistadors had a lot to gain by portraying the Aztecs as evil, sadistic baby-killers. Why do you think so few of the codices survived and that the Codex Florentine, that does mention human sacrifice was compiled by a Spaniard?

Haha! So, the written accounts of Spaniards are admissible when they detail the atrocities of the Spaniards, but not when they detail the atrocities of the Aztecs. How... convenient! Those poor noble savages!

You can choose to willfully live in ignorance of the fact of Aztec brutality, its OK with me. But, just for fun:

David Carrasco, Historian at Harvard:
City of Sacrifice: Violence From the Aztec Empire to the Modern Americas (http://www.amazon.com/City-Sacrifice-Violence-Empire-Americas/dp/0807046434)
Fascinating study of Aztec religion in the context of the communal life of the City and the promotion of a common cosmology and morality. Unlike many authors of Aztec religion, Carrasco doesn't shy away from presenting the most grim aspects of Aztec human sacrifice, (from the drawing of thorns through the tongue to the heart wrenching sacrifice of children to the phantasmagoric ripping of hearts from chest cavities).


Kay Read, Historian at DePaul:
Time and Sacrifice in the Aztec Cosmos (http://www.amazon.com/Sacrifice-Aztec-Cosmos-Religion-America/dp/0253334004)
This book makes a convincing case for what sacrifice meant religiously and for how it came to be that human sacrifice of staggering proportions could be accepted, matter-of-factly, by the Mexica people.



Meyer, Michael C. and William L. Sherman.
The Course of Mexican History (http://www.amazon.com/Course-Mexican-History-Michael-Meyer/dp/0195148193). Oxford University Press, 5th ed. 1995.
The Aztecs were constantly at war with neighboring tribes and groups. The goal of this constant warfare was to collect live prisoners for sacrifice. The Flowery Wars began with a mutual agreement between the Aztecs and the Tlaxcalans to capture live men for future sacrifice


Christina Jacqueline Johns, Sociologist at Eastern Michigan
The Origins of Violence in Mexican Society (http://books.google.com/books?id=Wb2OFtlEPg4C&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=%22it+is+impossible+to+determine+exactly+how+ma ny+people+the+aztecs+sacrificed%22&source=bl&ots=510rKf8n-F&sig=0neQlP6bxsnDGf3b8RD4F2pMpsY&hl=en&ei=thr7SqqZGsuDnQejq_n8DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22it%20is%20impossible%20to%20determine%20exact ly%20how%20many%20people%20the%20aztecs%20sacrific ed%22&f=false)
It is impossible to determine exactly how many people the Aztecs sacrificed, but there are enough estimates from the chroniclers to indicate that the numbers must have been very great. Prescott, for example, cited sixteenth century estimates that Aztec human sacrifice consumed form 20,000 to 50,000 human lives annually at the height of the empire. Duran, who used Aztec picture writings and Indian informants as sources, maintained that at the dedication of the temple in Mexico alone 80,000 people were sacrificed


And, of course, Our Dear Friend, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mexico) (LOTS of footnotes, which I know you love):
The Aztecs' religious beliefs were based on a great fear that the universe would cease functioning without a constant offering of human sacrifice. They sacrificed thousands of people on special occasions. This belief is thought to have been common throughout Nahuatl people. In order to acquire captives in times of peace, the Aztec resorted to a form of "ritual warfare", or flower war. Tlaxcalteca and other Nahuatl nations were forced into such wars, and, not particularly liking the idea of being a perpetual source of human sacrifices, they willingly joined the Spaniard forces against the Aztecs.

Damn all these revisionists!

[madurobob]

As for evidence, I can't post links, and I'm not as familiar with the evidence for Aztec as Inca sacrifices.

Actually, I think you can! I think the clip-level is 15 posts. Give it a shot.

[justcharlie09]

Actually, I think you can! I think the clip-level is 15 posts. Give it a shot.

Woohoo!!!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071003-inca-sacrifice.html

Study of Inca mummies--fattened before being ritually killed as sacrifices.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUDiXs927-U

Some sacrifices were as young as 6 or 7 years old...

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/explorer/4084/Photos#tab-Photos/0

The "Lightning Girl" (a six year old girl sacrificed, turned into a mummy by the elements and damaged by lightning strike sometime after death) was 6 years old at the time of death. They are the so-called "Children of Llullaillaco".

Of course, these aren't Aztecs, but contemporaries with a not entirely dissimilar culture. That one left mummies and the other didn't, I'm willing to guess, is only a result of the climate they inhabited.

[Alt+F4]

Haha! So, the written accounts of Spaniards are admissible when they detail the atrocities of the Spaniards, but not when they detail the atrocities of the Aztecs. How... convenient! Those poor noble savages!

Do some research into what the motivations were for what Bernal Diaz del Castillo wrote and the motivations for what Bartolome de las Casas wrote.

You can choose to willfully live in ignorance of the fact of Aztec brutality, its OK with me. But, just for fun

None of those books dispute the fact that there were exactly TWO eyewitness accounts by conquistadors of human sacrifice (Cortez and del Castillo). Del Castillo's has already been proven false and Cortez was a known liar and murderer.

All of those books site the legend of 84,000+ sacrifices over four days for the re-dedication of the temple for Huitzilopochtli in 1487. There is no evidence these sacrifices ever happened. Can you even explain the logistics of how this would have worked considering that cracking a human chest and ripping out a still beating heart would take quite awhile for people who did not use metal weapons?

Your sources also speak of the skull rack the conquistadors saw in Tenochtitlan. The number of skulls reported ranged from a few hundred to over a hundred and thirty thousand. Which is it? How many skulls have been found in European catecombs? Were the European performing human sacrifices?

[madurobob]

[All of those books site the legend of 84,000+ sacrifices over four days for the re-dedication of the temple for Huitzilopochtli in 1487. There is no evidence these sacrifices ever happened.
Sure there is, this "legend" comes form the Aztec's own description of the event, not anything made up by any outsiders. Why would they lie about such a thing?

I've shown you piles of sources and I can show you piles more. The general consensus among historians and archeologists is that there was ritual human sacrifice on a massive scale among the Aztec. Human sacrifice was common among the mezoamericans, but the Aztec took it to a nearly unimaginable scale. Do you deny the existence of the flower wars? Do you deny the growing evidence of mass graves of those murdered, along with evidence of the brutal nature of their murders? Do you deny that the Aztec ritually murdered and ate their sacrifices?

Fine, bring on your evidence. So far you've offered... nothing.

[Alt+F4]

The "Lightning Girl" (a six year old girl sacrificed, turned into a mummy by the elements and damaged by lightning strike sometime after death) was 6 years old at the time of death. They are the so-called "Children of Llullaillaco".

Of course, these aren't Aztecs, but contemporaries with a not entirely dissimilar culture. That one left mummies and the other didn't, I'm willing to guess, is only a result of the climate they inhabited.

While there isn't much evidence that the Aztec performed ritual burials of sacrifice victims you might be right, the climate of Machu Picchu vs. Tenochtitlan would certainly explain the lack of Mexican mummies.

The people the Aztec conquered certainly hated them, but the reason was that they were forced to pay tribute to Tenochtitlan not because the Aztec went around cutting off the hands and testicles of the conquered. That's what the conquestadors did.

[madurobob]

Woohoo!!!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071003-inca-sacrifice.html

Study of Inca mummies--fattened before being ritually killed as sacrifices.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUDiXs927-U

Some sacrifices were as young as 6 or 7 years old...

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/explorer/4084/Photos#tab-Photos/0

The "Lightning Girl" (a six year old girl sacrificed, turned into a mummy by the elements and damaged by lightning strike sometime after death) was 6 years old at the time of death. They are the so-called "Children of Llullaillaco".

Of course, these aren't Aztecs, but contemporaries with a not entirely dissimilar culture. That one left mummies and the other didn't, I'm willing to guess, is only a result of the climate they inhabited.

Well done!

However, all of this is clear evidence of ritual human sacrifice that was common throughout the region. Deplorable, but common. Not even Alt-F4 disagrees that this was a widespread practice.

But, what about the Aztec? Where they just you average run of the mill meso-American ritual murderers and cannibals, or did they amp up the scale by a few orders of magnitude?

[justcharlie09]

Maybe I have no sense of proportion, but if they were killing and ripping the hears out of their victims on a semi-regular basis...it really doesn't matter to me whether the did it on a massive scale or just once a month or so do keep the sun god moving along.

It still resides in the realm of "things not to repeat from history" and "people are brutal" territory. The Incas and Aztecs killed children just to satisfy their "gods" and imperialist designs.

"They weren't so bad, they only killed a few peasants and their kids for the rituals." Just doesn't really make a lot of difference to me. Any more than I'd give the Spanish Inquisition a free pass for not killing as many people as the Nazis or Stalin. Institutionalized brutal murder is brutal murder...ritual cruelty is cruelty.

Doubt the sacrifices thought "Oh well, if they only kill me and a few others, it isn't really so bad."

Nope, Spaniards and Aztecs and Incas are clear examples of WHAT NOT TO DO when it comes to the treatment of other humans.

[Alt+F4]

Sure there is, this "legend" comes form the Aztec's own description of the event, not anything made up by any outsiders. Why would they lie about such a thing?

To appear tough to the conquistadors. Where's the evidence of a mass grave of over 84,000 victims? How long would it take to remove a heart from a victim with a flint knife? Do the math, what the legend says happened is impossible.

I've shown you piles of sources and I can show you piles more. The general consensus among historians and archeologists is that there was ritual human sacrifice on a massive scale among the Aztec. Human sacrifice was common among the mezoamericans, but the Aztec took it to a nearly unimaginable scale. Do you deny the existence of the flower wars? Do you deny the growing evidence of mass graves of those murdered, along with evidence of the brutal nature of their murders? Do you deny that the Aztec ritually murdered and ate their sacrifices?

Again, no one is denying that the Aztec performed human sacrifices. You have zero evidence that it was on a massive scale.

Fine, bring on your evidence.

I already have.

[justcharlie09]

While there isn't much evidence that the Aztec performed ritual burials of sacrifice victims you might be right, the climate of Machu Picchu vs. Tenochtitlan would certainly explain the lack of Mexican mummies.

The people the Aztec conquered certainly hated them, but the reason was that they were forced to pay tribute to Tenochtitlan not because the Aztec went around cutting off the hands and testicles of the conquered. That's what the conquestadors did.

It would be hard to prove, without doubt, ritual sacrifice without a mummy on hand to examine. I guess that's my point. You could make a guess at what was done to a pile of bones, but without the soft tissue, it probably gets harder to tell with the passage of time just what happened to the victim.

Again, there's no picking a "good" side in the Spaniards vs. the Aztec. They were both awful in terms of their inhumane behavior.

[Alt+F4]

Again, there's no picking a "good" side in the Spaniards vs. the Aztec. They were both awful in terms of their inhumane behavior.

Ever wonder why the African slave trade started around 1600? Everyone else was dead. By massacre or disease the Europeans killed about 90% of the native population in the Caribbean and about 50% in Mexico.

When Cortez was looking for Indian allies to fight with him against the Aztec he had no problem finding thousands of warriors who were pissed off at the Aztecs....pissed off, but still alive.

[justcharlie09]

Ever wonder why the African slave trade started around 1600? Everyone else was dead. By massacre or disease the Europeans killed about 90% of the native population in the Caribbean and about 50% in Mexico.

When Cortez was looking for Indian allies to fight with him against the Aztec he had no problem finding thousands of warriors who were pissed off at the Aztecs....pissed off, but still alive.

The slave trade started because there was a market for it and the Europeans supplied the market. There were slaves/slavery prior to that time, but starting into the 1600's it was a slavery "boom" time.


Since germ theory didn't really come around until much later, I have a hard time faulting them for the intentional "killing" of people they came into contact with through disease. Slavery, butchering of other humans, spreading injustice... guilty. Killing people through bad hygiene? Not sure that would even hold up as negligence on their part, much less something they actively set out to do.


I take it you think we should pick a side in historical battles? I can't do it. I have a hard time even picking a side in modern blood baths. I'm a pacifist.

Again, the main function of history: study it, and try not to repeat it.

[madurobob]

Again, no one is denying that the Aztec performed human sacrifices. You have zero evidence that it was on a massive scale.
Wrong. I have provided several links of well known historians specializing in meso-America at the time of the Aztecs. They all agree that the Aztecs did, indeed, perform human sacrifice on a massive scale.

I already have.
Ha! You post one short quote from a Spaniard contemporary with an axe to grind?!

THAT's what you consider evidence?

So, you provide no evidence of a modern historian or archeologist who refutes the accepted theory, supported by contemporary literature and archeological evidence, that the Aztec performed ritual human sacrifice on a massive scale. Instead, you post a single 500 year old quote from a Spaniard territorial ruler with an axe to grind. Then, you complain that quotes from modern historians are not evidence because they don't cite primary sources.

Well done.

[Alt+F4]

They all agree that the Aztecs did, indeed, perform human sacrifice on a massive scale.

They agree that the Aztecs performed human sacrifice, but where is the evidence that it was on a massive scale? You have none.

You post one short quote from a Spaniard contemporary with an axe to grind?!

Evidence that he lied? You have none.

So, you provide no evidence of a modern historian or archeologist who refutes the accepted theory, supported by contemporary literature and archeological evidence, that the Aztec performed ritual human sacrifice on a massive scale.

Where is the archelolgical evidence of human sacrifice on a massive scale in the Aztec empire? Where are the mass graves? You have nothing. Where are modern historians getting their evidence from?

Well done.

Thanks.

[fuelair]

Well, they certainly did their share of killing, conquering, and heart-ripping-out ceremonies. The Aztec, and other groups were known not to be a friendly bunch (anymore than the Spanish).

yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1999/2/99.02.01.x.html

(can't post links yet, that's as close as I can get--sorry)

None of that justifies what the Spanish did at the time. Especially, when they brought the Inquisition with them to a new land. Really we should look on history and try very hard not to repeat it. Whether we're avoiding the Spanish Inquisition or avoiding sacrificing human hearts to a sun god.

All the same, it is hard for me to see this in any other light than "people are brutal". The larger the population, the more sought after the resources, the bloodier the whole mess becomes. Add to that, the fact that the Pope didn't even get around to issuing a papal bull declaring the "indians" as human until somewhere in the 17th century, and you just have a recipe for disaster.

I wouldn't want to have lived in either society. The fact that Spaniards took full advantage of the weapons at their disposal without regard for the human consequences strikes me as pretty typical of most people throughout history.

If you have not read this and/or watched the PBS show(3 pts IIRC), you might want to. Right up the discussion's alley: http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393061310/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258322307&sr=1-1

[justcharlie09]

If you have not read this and/or watched the PBS show(3 pts IIRC), you might want to. Right up the discussion's alley: http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393061310/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258322307&sr=1-1

Actually, it's been on my "to read" list. His Collapse book was also quite good, if a bit lengthy. :D


There is a PBS docu on his book? Wonder how I missed that! Thanks.
(Found a NatGeo one, is this the only one or are there two?)

This may sound stupid, but the thing that strikes me about Amerindian culture vs. Western is the lack of large domesticated animals. How did that limit their technological growth prior to Spanish conquest? How would native cultures have evolved if they had domesticated rather than eaten the original American horses?

[fuelair]

Actually, it's been on my "to read" list. His Collapse book was also quite good, if a bit lengthy. :D


There is a PBS docu on his book? Wonder how I missed that! Thanks.
(Found a NatGeo one, is this the only one or are there two?)

This may sound stupid, but the thing that strikes me about Amerindian culture vs. Western is the lack of large domesticated animals. How did that limit their technological growth prior to Spanish conquest? How would native cultures have evolved if they had domesticated rather than eaten the original American horses?

That, crop variety and minerals all play a part!! Would have been Nat Geo then - I have it taped from a while back but have not re-watched recently.

[quadraginta]

<snip>

How long would it take to remove a heart from a victim with a flint knife?

<snip>


Just a minor nitpick, but since you keep bringing it up it might help to point out that Mesoamerica made common use of obsidian tools.

Flint leads to images of stone tools, although still quite sharp. Obsidian is glass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsidian_use_in_Mesoamerica#Utilitarian).

Morphologically, obsidian was worked into a variety of tool forms, including knives, lance and projectile points (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projectile_point), prismatic blades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prismatic_blade), general bifacial tools (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biface), and utilized flakes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithic_flake). Blades have been found in situ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_situ) with rabbit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit), rodent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodent), and mollusk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mollusk) remains, indicating their use in butchery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butcher). The practical use of obsidian is obvious considering that the material can be used to make some of the sharpest edges on earth.Time might have been a constraint, but not necessarily a constraint enforced by available technology.

[justcharlie09]

Just a minor nitpick, but since you keep bringing it up it might help to point out that Mesoamerica made common use of obsidian tools.

Flint leads to images of stone tools, although still quite sharp. Obsidian is glass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsidian_use_in_Mesoamerica#Utilitarian).

Time might have been a constraint, but not necessarily a constraint enforced by available technology.

Great point! And, I'm being lazy at the moment so I don't have the cite for it.... but weren't some of the Pre-Columbian cultures quite skilled surgeons? I mean, I doubt they were big fans of the Hippocratic Oath or would have been had they known about it...but didn't they do some relatively complicated cutting with those tools?

Besides, I'm always amazed how skilled/quick an individual can be come after completing a task repeatedly. Practice makes perfect, and all that...grizzly as the thought is in this instance :eye-poppi

[fuelair]

Great point! And, I'm being lazy at the moment so I don't have the cite for it.... but weren't some of the Pre-Columbian cultures quite skilled surgeons? I mean, I doubt they were big fans of the Hippocratic Oath or would have been had they known about it...but didn't they do some relatively complicated cutting with those tools?

Try this: http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/data/art/FERNAN01.ART

[justcharlie09]

Try this: http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/data/art/FERNAN01.ART

Thanks :)

[dudalb]

Welcome aboard, justcharlie09


Perhaps just a tad, but not too bad. The opening paragraph was a bit harsh with its references to "fanatics" and "luddites" that I think weren't necessary to make your point. But, overall I'd give it good marks.



Sadly, yes. I have met them before.

?


And we have at least one who posts here,mainly in the politics and conspiracy section.
Of course if there fools ever actually had to live in a pre industrial society they would be screaming for mercy within a couple of days. They think that pre industrial societies were one long Rennasiance Fair or SCA Event.

"the Good Old Days, The Good Old Days,
Which we so fondly speak of,
Which if they really came back,
We could not stand a week of".

[Clownshoes]

I agree with the OP that the Indians might not have been any more spiritual than any other culture. That said although industrialized countries are nice to live in there still is something to be said for a want to preserve nature in its pristine forms.

I don't think that your class mates all really believe that the Indians were magical and mystical but they can relate to a basic instinct we all have to enjoy nature. I personally don't want to see apartment complexes and mansions at the tops of the Grand Canyon and national parks do you? Sometimes its nice to go hiking through the woods without worrying if your stepping on someone private property.

I think this is where the appeal of Natives comes into play and can get idolized when all we do anymore is live and work in concrete jungles.

[Belgian thought]

I would reccomend "Koyaanisqatsi" to school kids, if only to get them into recycling a bit more.
The film does end with "Prophecies" sung in the Hopi dialect though. The translation being: "If we dig precious things from the land, we will invite disaster. Near the Day of Purification, there will be cobwebs spun back and forth in the sky. A container of ashes might one day be thrown from the sky, which could burn the land and boil the oceans."

[madurobob]

Great point! And, I'm being lazy at the moment so I don't have the cite for it.... but weren't some of the Pre-Columbian cultures quite skilled surgeons? I mean, I doubt they were big fans of the Hippocratic Oath or would have been had they known about it...but didn't they do some relatively complicated cutting with those tools?

Besides, I'm always amazed how skilled/quick an individual can be come after completing a task repeatedly. Practice makes perfect, and all that...grizzly as the thought is in this instance :eye-poppi

There is evidence suggesting some kind of specialized surgery going on, and evidence of a pretty high survival rate for trepanation (poking holes in the skull) among the Inca. As you say... practice makes perfect! And, I doubt their early adventures in surgery were any more or less grizzly than that of Europe or anywhere else.

But, there was a brief movement a couple of decades ago to paint ALL the evidence of mass ritual murder throughout meso america as evidence instead of great centers of medicine. The priests, you see, were simply performing surgery to try to save those poor people. The Noble Savage strikes again!

[justcharlie09]

I agree with the OP that the Indians might not have been any more spiritual than any other culture. That said although industrialized countries are nice to live in there still is something to be said for a want to preserve nature in its pristine forms.

I don't think that your class mates all really believe that the Indians were magical and mystical but they can relate to a basic instinct we all have to enjoy nature. I personally don't want to see apartment complexes and mansions at the tops of the Grand Canyon and national parks do you? Sometimes its nice to go hiking through the woods without worrying if your stepping on someone private property.

I think this is where the appeal of Natives comes into play and can get idolized when all we do anymore is live and work in concrete jungles.

No, of course not. Nor would I want to see the whole world strip-mined for ever-growing energy demands, or the oceans turned into a toxic soup of human waste and petrochemical leavings...

Realistically, I think most people say whatever comes easiest to pass the class and get their cultural awareness credit. Which is fair, I mean, everyone wants to pass, right? The time and $$$ alone for college serve as great inspiration for that :D

Yes, the Noble Savage image is appealing. Some part of man/womankind deeply connected to nature--the original ecologist. Proof that man and nature can be in some sort of beautiful spiritual harmony. The daydream that if we'd all just drop our iPods and Blackberries and grab a loin cloth we'd all be peaceful and happy. And, better yet, the polar bears wouldn't have to drift, forelorn, on some chunk of melting ice....

http://legalplanet.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/polar-bear.jpg

Too bad it's about as far from reality as getting an acceptance letter from Hogwarts. :D

[justcharlie09]

There is evidence suggesting some kind of specialized surgery going on, and evidence of a pretty high survival rate for trepanation (poking holes in the skull) among the Inca. As you say... practice makes perfect! And, I doubt their early adventures in surgery were any more or less grizzly than that of Europe or anywhere else.

But, there was a brief movement a couple of decades ago to paint ALL the evidence of mass ritual murder throughout meso america as evidence instead of great centers of medicine. The priests, you see, were simply performing surgery to try to save those poor people. The Noble Savage strikes again!

The Aztec: the original open-heart surgeons :)

Really, I know people don't like thinking their ancestors were ritual killers, but most of us do have ancestors at some point in antiquity that did it. My forbearers were probably predominantly Scots and Norsemen. I'm perfectly okay with the understanding that they were pretty brutal:

http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/bog/

I think the ancient Scots also kept the heads of their enemies as trophies for the mantel (can you imagine what it was like to be a kid growing up in that time????). I can't remember where I read or heard it. If someone knows a link. Sorry, I don't have a cite for that.

Why do we have to handle everyone's ancestors with kid gloves? I mean, as long as no one is still practicing these things and everyone agrees it's generally a barbaric practice...what's the biggie?

[madurobob]

Why do we have to handle everyone's ancestors with kid gloves? I mean, as long as no one is still practicing these things and everyone agrees it's generally a barbaric practice...what's the biggie?

Guilt.

Its not everyone's ancestors we handle with kid gloves, its the ancestors of those our ancestors brutally vanquished. So, we feel guilty that our ancestors acted so shamefully and try to make up for it by turning a blind eye to the atrocities committed by those vanquished and their ancestors.

But, yeah, its all very silly.

[justcharlie09]

Guilt.

Its not everyone's ancestors we handle with kid gloves, its the ancestors of those our ancestors brutally vanquished. So, we feel guilty that our ancestors acted so shamefully and try to make up for it by turning a blind eye to the atrocities committed by those vanquished and their ancestors.

But, yeah, its all very silly.

Yes, that's probably it in a nutshell. There's plenty of room for guilt. All the same, giving everyone else's ancestors and religions a free pass on absurdity and brutality takes it a few steps too far over the line for my taste. I guess I'm just more comfortable saying brutality is a very human thing.

It could actually be a good bonding/healing moment for the globe to actively talk about what ghouls our great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great (plus or minus a few hundred greats) grandpappies were. :D

Mine slashed em' up and sunk them in a bog! Oh yeah, well mine ripped their hearts and tossed them down steps! Yeah, well, mine boiled em' alive in hot oil. How do you like them apples? :D

[gypsey]

just saying as half cherokee there really are other tribes that are not aztec or inca :(
some tribes didn't practice human sacrifice or cannibalism

a link to one mans thoughts on native people

http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html

[gypsey]

one more quote and i will leave it alone

The depiction of Indians as wild beasts was quite common among early American leaders, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. David E. Stannard writes: 'As is so often the case, it was New England's religious elite who made the point more graphically than anyone. Referring to some Indians who had given offense to the colonists, the Reverend Cotton Mather wrote: "Once you have but got the Track of those Ravenous howling Wolves, then pursue them vigourously; Turn not back till they are consumed… Beat them small as the Dust before the Wind." Lest this be regarded as mere rhetoric, empty of literal intent, consider that another of New England's most esteemed religious leaders, the Reverend Solomon Stoddard, as late as 1703 formally proposed to the Massachusetts Governor that the colonists be given the financial wherewithal to purchase and train large packs of dogs "to hunt Indians as they do bears."' [American Holocaust: Columbus and the Conquest of the New World (New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press (1992)), p. 241]

[justcharlie09]

just saying as half cherokee there really are other tribes that are not aztec or inca :(
some tribes didn't practice human sacrifice or cannibalism

a link to one mans thoughts on native people

http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html

No, of course not. The native people of America were (and still are) very diverse.

I guess my point in all of this is that our ancestors (native and non-native) should be seen as the humans they were--rather than some vaunted ideal. We should view their prophecies and beliefs in their appropriate context. This was my main beef with the original video--the lack of balanced perspective.

In the interest of understanding history no group can be allowed to become sacrosanct--this includes Judeo-Christian groups every bit as much as Native American ones.

[justcharlie09]

one more quote and i will leave it alone

I'm not sure what your point is? No one is arguing that the Anglo-American and Spanish settlers of the Americas were in any way justified in their behavior.

The main argument, as I've already stated, is that both groups were human. Waxing poetic about a return to "earlier times"--whether we're talking about the absurdity of a Ren Fair mentality or suggesting the modern world adopt a hunter-gatherer lifestyle--is just plain silly and ignores the historical realities of both.

I'm not trying to malign Native groups by saying this.

Do some Native groups have wise points about ecology? I'm sure they do, just as some Eurasian, Middle Eastern, and African descendents occasionally say something worthwhile on the topic.

But, if anyone of any race, class, or culture tells me that the world will be a utopia if we all just grab a planting stick... they'll get the same response from me: :rolleyes:

[gypsey]

justcharlie09
No, of course not. The native people of America were (and still are) very diverse.

I guess my point in all of this is that our ancestors (native and non-native) should be seen as the humans they were--rather than some vaunted ideal. We should view their prophecies and beliefs in their appropriate context. This was my main beef with the original video--the lack of balanced perspective.

In the interest of understanding history no group can be allowed to become sacrosanct--this includes Judeo-Christian groups every bit as much as Native American ones.

actually i agree with you about this but for the last several years i hear a lot from people about the aztecs and incas and they seem to want to lump all natives under one group as cannibals as if that justifies what was done and continues to be done
i am no activist and normally will avoid conversations about the subject but after a short trip home feelings get a little raw and everything seems to be an apologetic for the treatment of natives
so let me apologize for sticking my nose into your conversation and reading more into it than you meant :o

[gypsey]

justcharlie09 Originally Posted by gypsey
one more quote and i will leave it alone I'm not sure what your point is? No one is arguing that the Anglo-American and Spanish settlers of the Americas were in any way justified in their behavior.

The main argument, as I've already stated, is that both groups were human. Waxing poetic about a return to "earlier times"--whether we're talking about the absurdity of a Ren Fair mentality or suggesting the modern world adopt a hunter-gatherer lifestyle--is just plain silly and ignores the historical realities of both.

I'm not trying to malign Native groups by saying this.

Do some Native groups have wise points about ecology? I'm sure they do, just as some Eurasian, Middle Eastern, and African descendents occasionally say something worthwhile on the topic.

But, if anyone of any race, class, or culture tells me that the world will be a utopia if we all just grab a planting stick... they'll get the same response from me:

i apologize for that mea culpa

as a chikd growing up on a hill farm i think the people who see so much romance in "going back to nature" are complete idiots and no we didn't use planting sticks :eek: we were a "modern farm" papa had a 1940's ford tractor and we had hoe's and rakes all that modern stuff :D it was still a hard life
we hunted alot and sold honey and any extra crops to get the stuff we couldn't grow
i admit that i miss it alot sometimes but thats because i miss my grandparents and the fishing and hunting we did
by the time i was five i could drive the tractor and hunt or fish for the meat for supper
i knew that if i worked hard i would play just as hard later on but it is a life you have to be born into to really love
maybe because we were "hillbilly's" we didn't seem to move into the modern world untill i was about 9
things were even harder on my cherokee grandparents and when my Edudi died in 1978 there still was no indoor bathroom or running water in his house
my Elisi waited till 1982 before she had a bath room added and 1983 before she put in water to the kitchen (she also finally got an electric stove but she never used it said it burnt her food :D)
neither set of grandparents were religous i knew what each set believed but i wouldn't call any of it religous or even "spiritual" and they were all just human with all that entails :cool:

[justcharlie09]

i apologize for that mea culpa

as a chikd growing up on a hill farm i think the people who see so much romance in "going back to nature" are complete idiots and no we didn't use planting sticks :eek: we were a "modern farm" papa had a 1940's ford tractor and we had hoe's and rakes all that modern stuff :D it was still a hard life
we hunted alot and sold honey and any extra crops to get the stuff we couldn't grow
i admit that i miss it alot sometimes but thats because i miss my grandparents and the fishing and hunting we did
by the time i was five i could drive the tractor and hunt or fish for the meat for supper
i knew that if i worked hard i would play just as hard later on but it is a life you have to be born into to really love
maybe because we were "hillbilly's" we didn't seem to move into the modern world untill i was about 9
things were even harder on my cherokee grandparents and when my Edudi died in 1978 there still was no indoor bathroom or running water in his house
my Elisi waited till 1982 before she had a bath room added and 1983 before she put in water to the kitchen (she also finally got an electric stove but she never used it said it burnt her food :D)
neither set of grandparents were religous i knew what each set believed but i wouldn't call any of it religous or even "spiritual" and they were all just human with all that entails :cool:

Sorry, the planting stick reference was to the video I was initially talking about in the first post: The Hopi Prophecy that apparently aired on NM PBS at some point. The guys in the video were talking about some petroglyphs and how people had to return to the earth--they did mention planting sticks.

Don't worry, I'm not suffering under the impression that there are really people out there doing this--other than mostly Anglo eco-nuts aka neo-hippies and a few other people of a similar mindset. I've been out to the local reservations to help out during storms, etc. Everyone is nice--people like everyone else (of course) just trying to make things work. The only prophetic loon I actually know is fellow locally (caucasian) that gave up a cushy teaching job in the city to go live in an "off grid" mud hut declaring himself an anarcho-primitive. Ironically, the dude still blogs.

:rolleyes:

I have respect for farming and ranching. Those industries are vital to keeping the world fed and running. I think it's cool you had those experiences.

:)

[madurobob]

This just in - apparently the meso-americans weren't alone in their widespread cannibalism:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8394802.stm

"We see patterns on the bones of animals indicating that they have been spit-roasted," he said. "We have seen some of these same patterns on the human bones [at this site]."

Very interesting.

[justcharlie09]

This just in - apparently the meso-americans weren't alone in their widespread cannibalism:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8394802.stm



Very interesting.

Interesting, but not a shocker. Aren't our closest primate relatives (the chimpanzees) pretty high on the cannibalism scale?