4 ms·

Hey, I'm neither a Catholic nor a monotheist. I've got no personal dog in this fight, except that as a rule, my sympathies are generally aligned with indigenous

by nkoren 6y ago

Hey, I'm neither a Catholic nor a monotheist. I've got no personal dog in this fight, except that as a rule, my sympathies are generally aligned with indigenous peoples. And yeah, people can be super hypocritical: mote in your eye vs. the beam in my own, et cetera. And yeah, I agree that the genocidal excess commited by the conquistadores was, taken as a whole, the worst thing happening in the Americas at the time. But Diego de Landa wasn't taking it in as a whole. He was just having his personal experience. There's little reason to doubt the child sacrifice incident: that kind of thing absolutely did occur, and is well-attested both textually and archeologically. He didn't have the 10,000' view of the American genocide: he had a personal view, and he acted accordingly. Usually I'm not this sympathetic. When I read first-hand accounts of Pizzaro's conquest of the Inca at Cajamarca, for example, I'm appalled. Pizzaro's guys take umbrage at the Incan' Emporer disrespecting a bible by throwing it, incomprehending, on the ground. In retribution for this, they delight -- positively delight -- in immediately slaughtering several thousand unarmed members of the emperor's court. It's absolutely sick and indefensible, driven by a religious zealotry that (IMHO) had stripped them of their basic humanity. I'd always assumed that Diego de Landa was a similar kind of zealot, but when I read more, I found that it wasn't so simple. That's all I'm saying. Even when things are black and white at a high level, there can be greys in the details.

dntbnmpls 6y ago
> Hey, I'm neither a Catholic nor a monotheist. Never said you were. > I've got no personal dog in this fight I don't know about that. Seems you are heavily invested. > There's little reason to doubt the child sacrifice incident: There are plenty of reasons to doubt Landa's account. "While passing through Cupules, he came upon a group of 300 about to sacrifice a young boy. Enraged, Landa stormed through the crowd, released the boy, smashed the idols and began preaching with such zeal and sincerity that they begged him to remain in the land and teach them more." Does that seem believable to you? If people were so blinded by their religion that they would sacrifice a boy, would they take so kindly to some outsider destroying their religious symbols and then beg the person who mocked their religion to stay and teach them? Feels made up to me. > that kind of thing absolutely did occur, and is well-attested both textually and archeologically. Yes. Never disputed human sacrifices. Just landa's account and justification. > I'd always assumed that Diego de Landa was a similar kind of zealot The guy ran an inquisition where he tortured and killed people. There isn't a higher level of zealotry than that. > there can be greys in the details. No. The point is that even if you were right, it still didn't justify his actions. There is no gray here. You are trying to sneakily justify the guy's actions. You are justifying an inquisition - torture and murder. But you most definitely don't have a dog in this fight. There is no justification for the holocaust. There is no justification for this inquisition, especially by the side committing genocide.
- hliyan 6y ago
  > There is no justification for this inquisition I believe you may be confusing cause with justification.
  - dntbnmpls 6y ago
    No. I'm not confusing anything. "...this is probably not politically correct to say, but I did develop some sympathy for that bishop." Sympathy implies justification. Also, I clearly explained what caused the bishop's inquisition. Lets switch it up. Imagine after reading mein kampf or a biography on hitler, nkoren wrote the following. "...this is probably not politically correct to say, but I did develop some sympathy for that fuhrer." I bet I wouldn't have gotten flagged and mass downvoted. nkoren's pathetic post is just carefully repackaged white supremacy/white man's burden. I'm surprised nkoren didn't come back with "it was cultural genocide not real genocide". There are a handful oft-repeated racist genocide denial.
hliyan 6y ago
I read your original comment as a simple historical statement that did it's best to make it clear that it was speculation about a possible cause and not a justification. Not sure why the GP is reading a moral stance into it.

by nkoren 6y ago

dntbnmpls 6y ago

> Hey, I'm neither a Catholic nor a monotheist. Never said you were. > I've got no personal dog in this fight I don't know about that. Seems you are heavily invested. > There's little reason to doubt the child sacrifice incident: There are plenty of reasons to doubt Landa's account. "While passing through Cupules, he came upon a group of 300 about to sacrifice a young boy. Enraged, Landa stormed through the crowd, released the boy, smashed the idols and began preaching with such zeal and sincerity that they begged him to remain in the land and teach them more." Does that seem believable to you? If people were so blinded by their religion that they would sacrifice a boy, would they take so kindly to some outsider destroying their religious symbols and then beg the person who mocked their religion to stay and teach them? Feels made up to me. > that kind of thing absolutely did occur, and is well-attested both textually and archeologically. Yes. Never disputed human sacrifices. Just landa's account and justification. > I'd always assumed that Diego de Landa was a similar kind of zealot The guy ran an inquisition where he tortured and killed people. There isn't a higher level of zealotry than that. > there can be greys in the details. No. The point is that even if you were right, it still didn't justify his actions. There is no gray here. You are trying to sneakily justify the guy's actions. You are justifying an inquisition - torture and murder. But you most definitely don't have a dog in this fight. There is no justification for the holocaust. There is no justification for this inquisition, especially by the side committing genocide.

hliyan 6y ago
> There is no justification for this inquisition I believe you may be confusing cause with justification.
- dntbnmpls 6y ago
  No. I'm not confusing anything. "...this is probably not politically correct to say, but I did develop some sympathy for that bishop." Sympathy implies justification. Also, I clearly explained what caused the bishop's inquisition. Lets switch it up. Imagine after reading mein kampf or a biography on hitler, nkoren wrote the following. "...this is probably not politically correct to say, but I did develop some sympathy for that fuhrer." I bet I wouldn't have gotten flagged and mass downvoted. nkoren's pathetic post is just carefully repackaged white supremacy/white man's burden. I'm surprised nkoren didn't come back with "it was cultural genocide not real genocide". There are a handful oft-repeated racist genocide denial.

hliyan 6y ago

I read your original comment as a simple historical statement that did it's best to make it clear that it was speculation about a possible cause and not a justification. Not sure why the GP is reading a moral stance into it.