View Full Version : If the Spaniards never wiped out Aztec culture
kataphraktoi
08-24-2006, 08:42
If the Spaniards never wiped out Aztec culture and human sacrifice remains till today, would you tolerate this as something unique to a culture and therefore not complain about it and risk being portrayed as a cultural imperialist?
Or would you scream murder (pun intended) and raise up a ruckus about human rights??
Very curious as to how much toleration one can expect to give......
All they did was drink their blood, strip them of their flesh and have their skeletons dance, sounds like a fascinating cultural difference to me.
AntiochusIII
08-24-2006, 09:12
The topic was better suited for a Monastery historical "what-if?", but the premise undermines it all.
As such, to assume that five hundred years will not be enough to bring about major changes in the hypothetical Aztec society weakens the point; the presentation suggests -- merely but suggest, a sniff of a smell -- a cheap shot against usual not-so-anti-multiculturalism sentiments in Europe undermines the premise.
Carry on.
Banquo's Ghost
08-24-2006, 09:29
Human rights are universal.
Religious and cultural traditions are important to communities, but not when they conflict with human rights as basic as the right to life.
In Ireland, we used to celebrate the cult of the severed head, and no-one ever wiped out our culture (despite some reasonable attempts). We just grew up.
Apart from Skibereen. :skull:
If the Spaniards never wiped out Aztec culture and human sacrifice remains till today, would you tolerate this as something unique to a culture and therefore not complain about it and risk being portrayed as a cultural imperialist?
Or would you scream murder (pun intended) and raise up a ruckus about human rights??
Very curious as to how much toleration one can expect to give......
If they still retained that habit, then they would most likely be seen as depraved and/or sick. The idea of human sacrifice is at odds with the western culture, thus, it would most likely be that there would be countless demands that the Aztecs cease their bloody practices.
Of course, if they hadn't been conquered by the Spaniards, the would have been by the Portugese, or maybe the English, or even the French, or the Germans, when they got around to it, or maybe the Hapsburgs. Or even maybe the Ottomans, looking for an easy conquest. See where I'm getting at with this? Their culture (all wealth aside) was at odds with Western ideas, and in those days, you didn't go out and debate things, you just went out and kilt the guy offending your morals.
Vladimir
08-24-2006, 13:30
Human rights are universal.
Religious and cultural traditions are important to communities, but not when they conflict with human rights as basic as the right to life.
In Ireland, we used to celebrate the cult of the severed head, and no-one ever wiped out our culture (despite some reasonable attempts). We just grew up.
Apart from Skibereen. :skull:
Right to life? I'll have to look that one up. :book: It seems to only apply to post-natal life. :shrug: Sorry, it just struck me as being odd that you would use a phrase credited to "right wing fundamantalists."
Many of these human sacrifices were voluntary. That is, the ones that weren't war captives. Would denying a person's ability to sacrifice his life be a violation of his freedom of speach? Would we be supressing his religion? I wonder what the ACLU would think.
Banquo's Ghost
08-24-2006, 13:53
Right to life? I'll have to look that one up. :book: It seems to only apply to post-natal life. :shrug: Sorry, it just struck me as being odd that you would use a phrase credited to "right wing fundamantalists."
Not odd, it's a phrase used in most discussions of rights:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Happy? :smile:
Many of these human sacrifices were voluntary. That is, the ones that weren't war captives. Would denying a person's ability to sacrifice his life be a violation of his freedom of speach? Would we be supressing his religion? I wonder what the ACLU would think.
If it can be shown that the person involved can make a decision without duress about ending his life, I have no problem with that. I doubt that many of the sacrificial victims were entirely free of cultural duress.
Vladimir
08-24-2006, 14:06
Not odd, it's a phrase used in most discussions of rights:
Happy? :smile:
Ya, I knew someone would bring that up. :laugh4: The Declaration is nice but all it really is is, well, our declaration of independence (why we're leavin').
I really don't think the Aztecs would have lasted long. Post-classical Mesoamerican civilization was nothing special and they were really "stirring up the natives" with all their religious wars. Aztec culture was stalling and may have fallen apart as early as the 17th cent.
This also reminds me of the story from Germany where a person *willingly* offered himself to a cannibal to be eaten. The documentation was there to say it was voluntary but the German authorities made a good decision by sending the cannibal to jail.
Ser Clegane
08-24-2006, 14:18
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm)
Check article 3
L'Impresario
08-24-2006, 14:33
OTOH, despite being "universal", this document isn't legally bind got anyone, not even its signatories.
The only "Human Rights" charter that was to bind its members and confer to third parties penal jurisdiction over them was the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. It was supposed to be legally binding for the EU members after the adoption of the EU Constitution.
yesdachi
08-24-2006, 14:39
I suppose it would depend on who was being sacrificed and how it was being “spun”.
Vladimir
08-24-2006, 15:03
It doesn't matter if the UN declares that everyone has a right to a three bedroom house on the beach and $100,000 a year. If they can't enforce their opinions than that's all they are. Thanks for the link though.
Ser Clegane
08-24-2006, 15:03
OTOH, despite being "universal", this document isn't legally bind got anyone, not even its signatories.
That doesn't change the fact that these "human rights" are considered to be a standard among Western nations and are commonly referred to when we talk about "violations of human rights" (e.g. China, Cuba, Iran etc.)
Therefore a "ruckus" about "human rights" as defined in this Declaration could certainly be expected if there would still be a nation that practiced human sacrifices.
Reenk Roink
08-24-2006, 15:11
Say the Aztecs whooped the Spaniards, followed them to Spain, whooped them there, took over France for the heck of it, and spread their culture and values in the meantime.
Fast forward a couple of centuries, and the Multi-Continental Aztec Confederation is the Super Power. We would certainly have a different paradigm on things now would we.
Secular people, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and various other groups would all have their own moral codes, their laws, that they would see as absolute and binding on everyone else on the world. Of course, they would agree on some things, but it is human nature to ignore the points on which we agree (which is the majority) and focus on our disagreements.
Though we may today claim the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the absolute, the reason why it is so supreme, is because of the firepower backing it. It also contradicts the Torah, Bible, Quran, all of which make claims to be the absolute guide for mankind.
It's an interesting situation...
"Might is Right" really holds up well...
Ser Clegane
08-24-2006, 15:16
It doesn't matter if the UN declares that everyone has a right to a three bedroom house on the beach and $100,000 a year. If they can't enforce their opinions than that's all they are.
I am always a bit puzzled when statements like the above are made - makes it look like the UN is some kind of detached organisation that ahs nothing to do with individual member states and just tries to "impose" "opinions" on other people.
Perhaps a reminder that Western countries (including the US) have been involved in creating this Declaration and apparently often refer to it.
But apparently "human rights" (or violations of the same) are only an issue when they can be cited as a reason to e.g. impose sanctions on another country (see Cuba thread), but the same "human rights" just become an "opinion" of an obscure organisation when the UN is cited as the source for a declaration of these rights.
Odd...
L'Impresario
08-24-2006, 15:18
It doesn't matter if the UN declares that everyone has a right to a three bedroom house on the beach and $100,000 a year. If they can't enforce their opinions than that's all they are. Thanks for the link though.
Actually it's not "their opinions". A great number of people worked for them and Americans had one of the most profound roles in the drafting of the declaration. Eleanor Roosevelt (http://www.udhr.org/history/Biographies/bioer.htm) and all, you know...
Therefore a "ruckus" about "human rights" as defined in this Declaration could certainly be expected if there would still be a nation that practiced human sacrifices.
Yes but this doesn't create a causal relationship between the existance of the charter with the western outrage. I'm not sure that many people know that much about the UDHR. Maybe it's just good ol' humanism that is well-rooted (more or less) in some traditions and not a formal document (which would be the fruit of that century-long intellectual process).
But sources for the justication of life's sanctity can be found in other cultures as well. This is also the point where endless talks rage on the universality and sources of Human Rights, their limits and their western bias. Michael Ignatieff has written a lot about this, among many others (Amartya Sen is also offering a good read on a similar note).
Though we may today claim the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the absolute, the reason why it is so supreme, is because of the firepower backing it. It also contradicts the Torah, Bible, Quran, all of which make claims to be the absolute guide for mankind.
That's not quite right...
There is an extremely complicated debate on the sources of the UDHR and how it can be misused to serve strategic interests, mainly by western countries. Sorry I can't comment more on this but I'm a bit bored writing about this in "non-official/graded" papers heh (maybe someone else can analyze the academical discussions around this issue).
Ser Clegane
08-24-2006, 15:28
Yes but this doesn't create a causal relationship between the existance of the charter with the western outrage. I'm not sure that many people know that much about the UDHR. Maybe it's just good ol' humanism that is well-rooted (more or less) in some traditions and not a formal document (which would be the fruit of that century-long intellectual process).
Of course it is just "good ol' humanism" as this should also be the basis for the UDHR - after all such a declaration does not appear out of thin air but should be a consensus about what the nations that voted for the declarations consider to be human rights.
It should be clear that the UDHR would not be the cause of the "ruckus" but that the "ruckus" and the UDHR are both expressions of what most people in (at least) Western nations consider to be "universal human rights"
Reenk Roink
08-24-2006, 15:30
That's not quite right...
There is an extremely complicated debate on the sources of the UDHR and how it can be misused to serve strategic interests, mainly by western countries. Sorry I can't comment more on this but I'm a bit bored writing about this in "non-official/graded" papers heh (maybe someone else can analyze the academical discussions around this issue).
Well then it falls into the same interpretive problems as religious texts do... Who would have guessed?
This is complicated, I'm going to have some candy... :2thumbsup:
L'Impresario
08-24-2006, 15:40
(k I'll do some baiting for discussion purposes and then leave heh)
It should be clear that the UDHR would not be the cause of the "ruckus" but that the "ruckus" and the UDHR are both expressions of what most people in (at least) Western nations consider to be "universal human rights"
But how can one be sure that this represents the popular will in its entirety? Can every sentence of the UDHR hold some truth for everyone?
Won't this have a negative impact on its universality and the approachment between cultures that agree with some (or most) of the points made in the declaration, but have problems with others? Is it possible that several other cultures will be offended by such a distinction and maybe discredit the whole process, thus harming the original intent of the UDHR creators?
When a western country defends human rights in one case and not in another, isn't this undermining their validity? "A western conspiracy" to meddle in things they shouldn't?
Should the UDHR be a bare minimum of commonly accepted views?
etc etc etc
All they did was drink their blood, strip them of their flesh and have their skeletons dance, sounds like a fascinating cultural difference to me.
well......we were able to handle the macarena.....
how bad can it be? :laugh4:
Geez, what you don't understand is that human sacrifice still exists today. Wich seems to be what the topic was about. Although few and far the government of thier prospective country protect these people. With the general law being a border, where they can practice what they want on thier side of the line but follow the governments laws if across the line. Also the governments try to protect them from being trespassed as the government offers no to little protection for someone crossing this line.
So even if they were left alone, modernization would probably get the best of them leaving behind a few pockets of tribes living like they did before. This is assuming they had contact with other nations but no wars for thier land to tear them aprt only trade and economic relations.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.