Quote: (09-28-2015 01:59 PM)frenchcorporation Wrote:
Quote: (09-28-2015 01:44 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:
Quote: (09-28-2015 01:35 PM)frenchcorporation Wrote:
Quote: (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.