Post: #1

The Aztec and Inca empires are considered to be some of the greatest civilizations ever known to man. Aztec and Incan palaces were vast and sophisticated as those in Europe, and their pyramids rivaled those in Egypt. Tenochitlan (modern day Mexico City) was home to over 100,000 people and one of the largest cities in the world at the time. Larger than Paris or London.











What is your opinion on the Spanish and Portuguese campaigns to Christianize the native peoples of Latin America during the 16th century?

Was it good? Bad? Was it needed? Should they have let the natives continue on their thousand-year old religious and cultural traditions?

I need some opinions and ideas for a paper of mying on this topic. Any history buffs out there can chime in.

So basically are you for or against the Christianization of the native peoples.

Post: #2

If I were to have feelings regarding these people I think their near extinction would be more pressing to me than their conversion to Catholicism.

As a selfish Brit, we profited handsomely from the Spanish galleons, so on the whole I don't have much of a problem with any of it

Post: #3

As in morally righteous or evil or are we talking about good or bad, in practical terms, for us?

Post: #4

(09-28-2015 12:45 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  As in morally righteous or evil or are we talking about good or bad, in practical terms, for us?

Any way you want to look at it. Doesn't really matter.

Post: #5

From what I understand of history during that time it was the "primitive bad vs advanced but pretty bad foreigners with a vision." The ethical and moral question becomes do you arbitrarily replace a primitive and murderous civilization with your own somewhat similar but more advanced and murderous civilization?

There is no right answer. Aztecs and Mayans just simply fell behind the curve. Is their culture worth preserving? sure, in museum format. Seeing real life Aztecs or Mayans running around with weapons causing trouble isn't romantic like the reality.

Actually you do see them running around with weapons in the modern day already..just look at parts of Mexico and the Cartel wars. Where do you think those hill people from Central America who run drug cartels descended from?

Post: #6

If we look in contemporary humanitarian terms, substituting religions that require human sacrifice for anything else is an improvement. Even islam pales in comparison.

Post: #7

The more I read about it, the more I can see why the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs was fairly quick (2 years until declaration of victory). The Aztecs were once a very advanced civilization, Tenochtitlan was once a glamorous city, much larger and more advanced than Madrid, Paris, or London. But something happened to the Aztec empire over time. This article, albeit brief, gets into this a little...

Two Cheers for the Conquistadors

The Aztecs were cosmetologists, relying on celestial omens and the like. They had become a culture obsessed with death, seeing the need to sacrifice humans to appease the gods whom they thought were unhappy and about to bring mass destruction upon them. When a famine hit in the 15th century, this only fanned the flames of those suspicions and was partly the cause of more wars and brutal killings/sacrificing of captured members of the neighboring civilizations. Human blood and other bodily fluids were secreted onto the floors of temples. By the time the Spaniards arrived, there was a serious lack of cooperation between the Aztecs and their neighbors, and I suspect within their own ranks.

Post: #8

(09-28-2015 01:12 PM)blacknwhitespade Wrote:  They had become a culture obsessed with death, seeing the need to sacrifice humans to appease the gods whom they thought were unhappy and about to bring mass destruction upon them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Muerte

Quote:killings/sacrificing of captured members of the neighboring civilizations.

http://mrconservative.com/2014/09/48745-...merica-21/

Quote: Human blood and other bodily fluids were secreted onto the floors of temples. By the time the Spaniards arrived, there was a serious lack of cooperation between the Aztecs and their neighbors, and I suspect within their own ranks.

Literally nothing has changed since the past until now. They are still the same people doing the same things. Just read the news and you'll see it's the same shit again and again in that part of Latin America.

Post: #9

In terms of consequences, Latin America has become so much more than their Aztec past, so the honest answer is that Christianization was a great thing for the entire continent. The slavery brought there is a stain, but South America is much richer and populous than it was in the Aztec days. It turned out to be a great thing, just as every Christian civilization ends up becoming huge and successful in the long run.

Post: #10

A homogenous, complex, one-relgion society, met with mostly male, agressive invaders, and their society fell. So I'd say it was a bad thing for them, on the whole.

Everywhere christians colonised, they went with a bible in one hand, and a weapon in the other, promising the natives riches in heaven, whilst stealing their earthly riches.

It'll be interesting to correlate poster's responses in here, with their posts in the "migrant invasion of europe thread".

Post: #11

(09-28-2015 01:06 PM)johnfortunebg Wrote:  If we look in contemporary humanitarian terms, substituting religions that require human sacrifice for anything else is an improvement. Even islam pales in comparison.

Quite often when christians have colonised countries, they always called the local religions barbaric/uncivilised etc, as en excuse to "educate" them. Strange.

Post: #12

(09-28-2015 01:35 PM)frenchcorporation Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 01:06 PM)johnfortunebg Wrote:  If we look in contemporary humanitarian terms, substituting religions that require human sacrifice for anything else is an improvement. Even islam pales in comparison.

Quite often when christians have colonised countries, they always called the local religions barbaric/uncivilised etc, as en excuse to "educate" them. Strange.

Yeah but in the case of the Aztecs and Mayans it was pretty much true. Barbaric and uncivilised is an accurate descriptor. They produced some pretty good art, were capable stone masons (as were many people around the world), had good agriculutural practices, but they definitely enjoyed dealing death to everyone not in their sphere. You live by the sword you die by the sword.

Post: #13

(09-28-2015 01:44 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 01:35 PM)frenchcorporation Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 01:06 PM)johnfortunebg Wrote:  If we look in contemporary humanitarian terms, substituting religions that require human sacrifice for anything else is an improvement. Even islam pales in comparison.

Quite often when christians have colonised countries, they always called the local religions barbaric/uncivilised etc, as en excuse to "educate" them. Strange.

Yeah but in the case of the Aztecs and Mayans it was pretty much true. Barbaric and uncivilised is an accurate descriptor. They produced some pretty good art, were capable stone masons (as were many people around the world), had good agriculutural practices, but they definitely enjoyed dealing death to everyone not in their sphere. You live by the sword you die by the sword.

Calling them barbaric is fair enough, but callling them uncivilised, when they built a pretty complex civilisation doesnt make sense.

Post: #14

(09-28-2015 01:59 PM)frenchcorporation Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 01:44 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 01:35 PM)frenchcorporation Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 01:06 PM)johnfortunebg Wrote:  If we look in contemporary humanitarian terms, substituting religions that require human sacrifice for anything else is an improvement. Even islam pales in comparison.

Quite often when christians have colonised countries, they always called the local religions barbaric/uncivilised etc, as en excuse to "educate" them. Strange.

Yeah but in the case of the Aztecs and Mayans it was pretty much true. Barbaric and uncivilised is an accurate descriptor. They produced some pretty good art, were capable stone masons (as were many people around the world), had good agriculutural practices, but they definitely enjoyed dealing death to everyone not in their sphere. You live by the sword you die by the sword.

Calling them barbaric is fair enough, but callling them uncivilised, when they built a pretty complex civilisation doesnt make sense.

They were based on agriculture and created a highly ritualistic society and tiered society. They formed a religion and charted the lunar patterns to better farm. They chiseled stone and built monuments.

Whoopty-fuckin-doo.

edit: To answer your question yes, they were barbaric as well as uncivilized. They barely had the wheel and their culture was based on lunar/agricultural harvest and the superstitions stemming from that. They were infatuated with death and sacrifice. They were a degenerate people and that mentality is still around.

There's nothing remotely amazing about that. Every single civilization (some still around today) have done that.

Historically and from an anthropology and archeology standpoint it's interesting but there's nothing at all unique about them as a people. If you want to go there i'd say that the Khmer are far more fascinating and achieved way more under more dire circumstances.

Post: #15

Christianity was used as sort of a side justification for the imperialism of the time being carried out by most major European nations. It's not really useful to frame the Spanish Conquest in terms of righteous or evil, especially when compared to the actions of the Aztecs and the Incans, who were just as imperialistic and brutal with their neighbors.

This was simply a battle of great powers that the Aztecs lost.

Whether it was ultimately a good thing for the people, I can't say. Who can predict how things might've been had they never been discovered? But contrary to what popular history will teach you, they weren't noble savages.

Post: #16

Christianity only filled the void of these civilizations. The Aztecs first contacted smallpox in 1519, and it soon wiped out 70% of the population. I'm sure if Cortes and Pizzaro asked for a boat to head back to Spain, the Aztec and Incan economies/culture would never recover. The flaw with those two civilizations was lack of written education/literacy, so death of elders would mean some oral traditions that would be lost forever. Europe didn't "lose' Christianity to the bubonic plague because they only lost 35% of population, but had the printing press and were looming towards Industrial Revolution. The Protestants boosted literacy rates compared to their Catholic counterparts, so it guaranteed European culture would never be lost.

Verdict: Good. I can learn Spanish/Portuguese and bang away in Latin America.

Post: #17

(09-28-2015 02:03 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  They were based on agriculture and created a highly ritualistic society and tiered society. They formed a religion and charted the lunar patterns to better farm. They chiseled stone and built monuments.

Whoopty-fuckin-doo.

edit: To answer your question yes, they were barbaric as well as uncivilized. They barely had the wheel and their culture was based on lunar/agricultural harvest and the superstitions stemming from that. They were infatuated with death and sacrifice. They were a degenerate people and that mentality is still around.

There's nothing remotely amazing about that. Every single civilization (some still around today) have done that.

Historically and from an anthropology and archeology standpoint it's interesting but there's nothing at all unique about them as a people. If you want to go there i'd say that the Khmer are far more fascinating and achieved way more under more dire circumstances.

So we are clear, that they met some threshold of civilisation. So then they were civilised. Maybe more or less civilised than other civilisations, but they were still civilised. It's not possible to build and run a civilisation and not be civilised, the former is almost a proxy for the latter.

Post: #18

Christianization is a result of colonization, which makes it hard to evaluate on its own merits. The Church functioned as a separate arm of colonial government by providing basic infrastructure in medicine (early hospitals) and education (missionaries, universities) as well as legal policy and social culture. Many populous cities in Latin America were originally Spanish missionary outposts that grew over time.

Beyond the stability and order it brought at the local level, missionary work was a driving force behind world exploration and settlement by Europeans; this helped civilized native peoples who were arguably 3,000-5,000 years behind Europeans, laying the foundation for more rapid and influential progress centuries later (e.g. industrial revolution). As an expansive institution, the Church in Latin America was benign in nature and helped to spread ideas/technology without exploiting the natives economically.

It was a very good thing.

Post: #19

Lets put the brakes on "Christianity" or Christianizing. Was it christianity as a whole that was doing the colonizing or...Catholicic-ization?

If you're going to blame a church, blame the right one.

Post: #20

I don't think most historians would agree that the Inca and Aztec empires were "some of the greatest known to man", as El Chapo has stated in this thread. I think that's overstating things a bit too much.

But they were distinct civilizations, and did make admirable accomplishments.

As with anything, the Conquista was a mixed blessing. It brought a lot of good things, and a lot of bad. All in all, the good outweighed the bad.

The social organization and political structures of the Indians were not as impressive as the OP's pictures suggest. These were societies (at least the Aztecs, Mayans, and Olmecs) that a lot of unpleasant elements (human sacrifice, slavery, permanent warfare), which modern Mexican nationalists tend to ignore.

The Incas did have an impressive and very sophisticated social organization, though.

All in all, it was a mixed blessing, as all such things are.

The one thing that I find unforgivable was the terrible mistreatment of the natives as slave labor, and the deliberate destruction of Mexican codices (books), to the extent that only a handful survive. Millions of Indians died as slave laborers in mines and on agricultural collectives.

The Spanish burned a great many illustrated Aztec books, and history has really suffered because of this. They also smashed and ruined countless numbers of artworks and other treasures. I wish they had not done this.

But in those days, religious chauvinism was the rule. There was no such thing as "tolerance" or "cooexistence" in those days. They considered the Indians to be devil-worshippers, and thought they were doing the work of God by destroying their civilization.

Post: #21

A more interesting question would be:

What would South America look like if it had been Protestant missionaries, not Catholics?

Post: #22

To me, the more interesting question is this:

Why were there such big cultural differences between the Europeans who settled North America and the Europeans who settled South America?

Why did the Spanish and Portuguese intermarry and mix with the Indians of Central and South America, while the Indians of North America did not mix (or at least very little) with the northern European types (English, Dutch, German, Scandinavian) that settled North America?

Indians in North America were essentially wiped out.

In Central and South America, they were also brutalized, but there was a large degree of admixture with the colonizers. Spanish and Portuguese took native wives, and also reproduced with slaves.

British didn't really do this, or at least not as much.

North America was a caste system that was very rigid. Why was this?

Was it climate? Geography? Cultural differences between the Mediterranean races and the Northern Europeans?

Post: #23

(09-28-2015 03:46 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  To me, the more interesting question is this:

Why were there such big cultural differences between the Europeans who settled North America and the Europeans who settled South America?

Why did the Spanish and Portuguese intermarry and mix with the Indians of Central and South America, while the Indians of North America did not mix (or at least very little) with the northern European types (English, Dutch, German, Scandinavian) that settled North America?

Indians in North America were essentially wiped out.

In Central and South America, they were also brutalized, but there was a large degree of admixture with the colonizers. Spanish and Portuguese took native wives, and also reproduced with slaves.

British didn't really do this, or at least not as much.

North America was a caste system that was very rigid. Why was this?

Was it climate? Geography? Cultural differences between the Mediterranean races and the Northern Europeans?

Aren't our questions essentially the same QC?

The Germans, Dutch and British haven't been Catholic for 500 years.

Post: #24

All this talk about Meso-America reminds me of this movie.




This scene is supposed to be Mayans in Tikal, Guatemala.


I wonder what was going through the minds of Cortez and Pizzaro when they encountered this in the new world. Must have been crazy to witness all of this.

Post: #25

(09-28-2015 03:46 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  To me, the more interesting question is this:

Why were there such big cultural differences between the Europeans who settled North America and the Europeans who settled South America?

Why did the Spanish and Portuguese intermarry and mix with the Indians of Central and South America, while the Indians of North America did not mix (or at least very little) with the northern European types (English, Dutch, German, Scandinavian) that settled North America?

Indians in North America were essentially wiped out.

In Central and South America, they were also brutalized, but there was a large degree of admixture with the colonizers. Spanish and Portuguese took native wives, and also reproduced with slaves.

British didn't really do this, or at least not as much.

North America was a caste system that was very rigid. Why was this?

Was it climate? Geography? Cultural differences between the Mediterranean races and the Northern Europeans?

From what I gathered, part of the reason was because there were so few Spanish women in the Americas. Whereas in North America, intact families came from England fleeing persecution already. Women and children from England came in droves which wasn't the case in New Spain.

No Spanish women in sight, and no real motivation to go back to Spain, Spanish men took Aztec wives.

It is interesting if you think about it though. British and Dutch men probably didn't think much of the native women, but the Spanish and Portuguese loved them.

Here are some quotes from a couple of Spanish conquistadors from a New Spain book I'm currently reading and what they thought of the Aztec women.

"While on the boat , I captured a very beautiful Aztec woman, that the Admiral gave me, and after that I took her to my cabin, and she being naked as is their custom, I felt like making love to her. I wanted to fulfill my desire but she would not permit it and gave me such a beating with her nails that made my face bleed. I took a rope and gave her a whipping and she cried like your ears couldn't believe. Finally, we came to an agreement that you would think she was raised in a school of harlots."


"Trying to count the number of Aztec woman each man has is impossible, but I'm willing to bet that there are a few christian men who have from 80 up to 100 women, and among them are probably mothers, daughters, sisters and cousins. Everybody knows this."


Another reason is because the captors were very proud of what they accomplished, so they basically said "we're fucking these women too".


The mindset was very different from Northern Europeans.



These images were very normal in New Spain:









Interesting stuff.