4 ms·

> But the Spanish conquistadors who marched into Tenochtitlan in 1519 saw them differently. For them, the skulls—and the entire practice of human sacrifice—evin

> But the Spanish conquistadors who marched into Tenochtitlan in 1519 saw them differently. For them, the skulls—and the entire practice of human sacrifice—evinced the Mexica's barbarism and justified laying waste to the city in 1521 This almost reads like “that’s just your opinion man” with regard to human sacrifice. The Aztecs were hated by the groups they subjugated causing them to join with the Spanish against the Aztecs.

timdiggerm 3y ago
On the one hand, I get that scholars want to maintain a neutral position so that moral judgements don't cloud their study. That makes a lot of sense to me. On the other hand, human sacrifice is bad.
- lupusreal 3y ago
  Yeah I think it's proper for scholars to maintain a neutral frame of mind when conducting their research. The problem happens when that neutrality leaks out of the scholarly setting.
- kaliqt 3y ago
  The former is more important than the latter. As in, remaining neutral should always take priority in these matters.
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    More important for who? The scholar? Perhaps so. Society? Society cannot function for long without moral judgments. At least, it can't function well.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
    I bet these "neutral" scholars all roundly condemn the Conquistadors.
lll-o-lll 3y ago
Cultural Relativism, like so much of Post Modernism, falls apart when the logical consequences are taken to the extremes. Everything can be deconstructed, leaving nothing of meaning. “I ground him in the mill, down to subatomic particles, and there was not one atom of life! Not one particle of consciousness!” Good and Evil do not exist, or so the argument goes, only arbitrary constructs. And yet. I look at the Aztecs; their worship of death, and I question.
- whythre 3y ago
  Evil absolutely exists. Pretending it doesn’t is a device of people who have some vested interest in ignoring it, or people who are so limited by their own comfortable experience that they have never been confronted by it. I have been reading Team of Rivals, a deep dive book about Lincoln’s presidential cabinet during the civil war. It is amazing that many of the men write about how, after having personally witnessed slavery, they then vigorously oppose it. (Seward, for example, goes on a trip to the South for vacation and basically comes back hating slavery because it is so clearly wicked). I imagine human sacrifice, death camps, gulags, they all evoke similar responses. ‘Societal good can only be reached through mass slaughter of the undesirable’ is the subtext. That should be repulsive to any with a functional moral core. The amount of suffering enacted by the Aztecs as they killed their neighbors children… I can’t imagine.
  - ElemenoPicuares 3y ago
    In the real world, evil is a morally lazy concept for people unwilling to consider that some abhorrent behavior that adults must be held accountable for also has root causes that we might have some culpability in. Pretending bad behavior happens in a vacuum shirks out duty as stewards for our society, pushing all responsibility of it onto the people who have to deal with the worst of it. Personal responsibility is the start, not the end of addressing the bad things that people do.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  But the same people who refuse to see the difference between "civilizations that systematically conduct large-scale murder" and "civilizations that don't" will, if you disagree, call you a Nazi. But if the two are equivalent, then what's wrong with being a Nazi? Note well: I am not endorsing the Nazis. I am merely pointing out a bizarre aspect of cultural relativism and associated movements. Also note: They could make a case that the Spaniards were also in the "systematically conducting large-scale murder" category. But if that's the argument, then there's still a moral judgment to be made between civilizations.
bambax 3y ago
It's fascinating that we consider the Aztecs an interesting historical culture, but recent monstrosities, well, monstrosities, and their perpetrators monsters.
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  It is similar with the Romans, a very developed and interesting civilization which was nevertheless extremely brutal towards its foes. Caesar's wars were basically one long string of genocides and the Roman military principle "Murum Aries Attigit" meant that unless a besieged city capitulated before the Romans started attacking it, there would be no mercy to the captives.
bigbillheck 3y ago
Worked out great when their children, grandchildren, and so on got sacrificed to a different god (Mammon).
adolph 3y ago
It is worse than "that's just your opinion man" since the statement tacitly accepts the religious premise that the killing of people represented by the skulls were a "practice of human sacrifice." There was never a tradeoff for the Mexica in which they had to give up something worthwhile for something more worthwhile, only delusion. It is like saying in a couple hundred years from now "For them, the gas chambers and crematoriums—the entire plan to purify humanity—evinced the Nazi's barbarism and justified laying waste to Germany in 1944."

timdiggerm 3y ago

On the one hand, I get that scholars want to maintain a neutral position so that moral judgements don't cloud their study. That makes a lot of sense to me. On the other hand, human sacrifice is bad.

lupusreal 3y ago
Yeah I think it's proper for scholars to maintain a neutral frame of mind when conducting their research. The problem happens when that neutrality leaks out of the scholarly setting.
kaliqt 3y ago
The former is more important than the latter. As in, remaining neutral should always take priority in these matters.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  More important for who? The scholar? Perhaps so. Society? Society cannot function for long without moral judgments. At least, it can't function well.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
  I bet these "neutral" scholars all roundly condemn the Conquistadors.

lll-o-lll 3y ago

Cultural Relativism, like so much of Post Modernism, falls apart when the logical consequences are taken to the extremes. Everything can be deconstructed, leaving nothing of meaning. “I ground him in the mill, down to subatomic particles, and there was not one atom of life! Not one particle of consciousness!” Good and Evil do not exist, or so the argument goes, only arbitrary constructs. And yet. I look at the Aztecs; their worship of death, and I question.

whythre 3y ago
Evil absolutely exists. Pretending it doesn’t is a device of people who have some vested interest in ignoring it, or people who are so limited by their own comfortable experience that they have never been confronted by it. I have been reading Team of Rivals, a deep dive book about Lincoln’s presidential cabinet during the civil war. It is amazing that many of the men write about how, after having personally witnessed slavery, they then vigorously oppose it. (Seward, for example, goes on a trip to the South for vacation and basically comes back hating slavery because it is so clearly wicked). I imagine human sacrifice, death camps, gulags, they all evoke similar responses. ‘Societal good can only be reached through mass slaughter of the undesirable’ is the subtext. That should be repulsive to any with a functional moral core. The amount of suffering enacted by the Aztecs as they killed their neighbors children… I can’t imagine.
- ElemenoPicuares 3y ago
  In the real world, evil is a morally lazy concept for people unwilling to consider that some abhorrent behavior that adults must be held accountable for also has root causes that we might have some culpability in. Pretending bad behavior happens in a vacuum shirks out duty as stewards for our society, pushing all responsibility of it onto the people who have to deal with the worst of it. Personal responsibility is the start, not the end of addressing the bad things that people do.
AnimalMuppet 3y ago
But the same people who refuse to see the difference between "civilizations that systematically conduct large-scale murder" and "civilizations that don't" will, if you disagree, call you a Nazi. But if the two are equivalent, then what's wrong with being a Nazi? Note well: I am not endorsing the Nazis. I am merely pointing out a bizarre aspect of cultural relativism and associated movements. Also note: They could make a case that the Spaniards were also in the "systematically conducting large-scale murder" category. But if that's the argument, then there's still a moral judgment to be made between civilizations.

bambax 3y ago

It's fascinating that we consider the Aztecs an interesting historical culture, but recent monstrosities, well, monstrosities, and their perpetrators monsters.

inglor_cz 3y ago
It is similar with the Romans, a very developed and interesting civilization which was nevertheless extremely brutal towards its foes. Caesar's wars were basically one long string of genocides and the Roman military principle "Murum Aries Attigit" meant that unless a besieged city capitulated before the Romans started attacking it, there would be no mercy to the captives.

bigbillheck 3y ago

Worked out great when their children, grandchildren, and so on got sacrificed to a different god (Mammon).

adolph 3y ago

It is worse than "that's just your opinion man" since the statement tacitly accepts the religious premise that the killing of people represented by the skulls were a "practice of human sacrifice." There was never a tradeoff for the Mexica in which they had to give up something worthwhile for something more worthwhile, only delusion. It is like saying in a couple hundred years from now "For them, the gas chambers and crematoriums—the entire plan to purify humanity—evinced the Nazi's barbarism and justified laying waste to Germany in 1944."