7 ms·
>If we are to judge those people, it must be on their own terms. And on their own terms, human sacrifice and cannibalism was what their faith (and therefore, th
by lurquer 8y ago
>If we are to judge those people, it must be on their own terms. And on their own terms, human sacrifice and cannibalism was what their faith (and therefore, their morality) required of them.
So, you're ok with the Spanish wiping them out? According to the mores of the time, Spain's actions were perfectly acceptable.
- marcoperaza 8y agoThank you for identifying this most insidious of tropes: exculpatory relativism for everyone else, but harsh judgment for Western history. I can’t help but conclude that a profound Western self-loathing underlies it.
- YeGoblynQueenne 8y agoIf that bit about "self-loathing" refers to me, you are way off the mark. I have no reason to feel guilty about collonialism. I am Greek and my people never egnaged in it. Instead, we were ourselves enslaved by the Ottomans during the time that other Europeans raided far away lands, killed their people and nicked their stuff. Put that in your assumption pipe and smoke it.
- marcoperaza 8y agoTo be fair, I omitted another thesis which on reflection actually seems more likely: a vilification of the victors qua victors. It seems that all else being equal, we will condemn one murderous conqeusting people while exculpating another, simply because the former triumphed over the latter.
- YeGoblynQueenne 8y agoExcuse me, but I am very confused. Which murderous conquesting people am I exculpating?
- YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago>> According to the mores of the time, Spain's actions were perfectly acceptable. That is a deeply ahistorical statement. In their own time, the conquistadores were strongly criticised for their atrocities, particularly on the side of the church. For a most prominent example see the extensive Wikipedia article on Bartolomé de las Casas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolom%C3%A9_de_las_Casas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolom%C3%A9_de_las_Casas Also, try to think about it this way: if everyone was OK with collonialist era practices, why are we not OK with them today? What changed, and when did it all start to change? Do things ever change spontaneously, with out explicit criticism of current morality, and purposeful attempts to reform it? (No, they don't).
- marcoperaza 8y agoThere are always dissenters. I guarantee that plenty of people in Mesoamerican society did not agree with the conquesting and violent ways of the Aztec Empire.
- YeGoblynQueenne 8y agoI don't understand the relevance of your comment to my remark about De Las Casas, who btw was a reformer, not a dissenter [1]. I think you may not be replying to the content of my comment, but instead identifying it with some other, third party's opinion, that you wish to disagree with. ______________ [1] His criticism of the savagery of the treatment of the Indians in the colonies led to legal reform that improved their condition significantly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolom%C3%A9_de_las_Casas#The_New_Laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolom%C3%A9_de_las_Casas#Th... Hardly just a bit of dissent.
- dang 8y agoThis comment breaks the site guidelines. For example: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." That guideline is there because not following it leads to flamewar. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow it and also the others. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18542311 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18542311 and marked it off-topic.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]