Spanish is not so important as latin-americans praise!

<<Again, if you got past your Eurocentric view of the world you would already know that there is ample evidence that Native Americans had in fact invented the wheel but there were no domesticated animals that could be easily be used for labour and therefore the use of the of the wheel was restricted to ornaments. >>
Yea they really knew how to use it, "wheel .. .restricted to ornaments." LOL
Your preaching the same old retoric of the "black legend" the "noble savage" retoric. Show me an erudite work of history by a reputable historian that denys the cannibalism and not some idiot.
<<After careful and systematic study of the sources, I find no sign of evidence of institutionalized mass human sacrifice among the Aztecs. The phenomenon to be studied, therefore, may be not these supposed sacrifices but the deeply rooted belief that they occurred.>>
Another words he can't deny it! He finds the bodies with the heart ripped out, but of course this could be for a multitude of reasons . . .
Come on! Is the garbage you belive.
Bernal Diaz del Castillo is the classic source of information about mass sacrifice by the Aztecs. A literate soldier in Cortes' company, Diaz claimed to have witnessed such a ritual. "We looked over toward the Great Pyramids and watched as [the Aztecs] ... dragged [our comrades] up the steps and prepared to sacrifice them," he wrote in his Historia Verdadera de la Conquista de la Nueva Espana (The True History of the Conquest of New Spain), published posthumously in 1632. "After they danced, they placed our comrades face up atop square, narrow stones erected for the sacrifices. Then, with obsidian knives, they sawed their breasts open, pulled out their still-beating hearts, and offered these to their idols."
And of course he must be lying! You moron!

<That human sacrifice was a major part of Aztec culture is testified to by the many stone receptacles for hearts and depictions of human sacrifice in Aztec art. We can know with certitude, if not exactitude. Yet even if we knew the exact numbers sacrificed annually, we still would not know for certain how many pounds of flesh were actually consumed. If all flesh of all victims was eaten, would it constitute a good dietary source of protein? >
<Even today, it is hard to comprehend the extent or rationale for this ritual sacrifice. It is estimated that approximately 20,000 people per year were sacrificed by the Aztec royalty. Captives were taken to the top of pyramids where, upon a ritual flat stone table, they had their chests cut upon and their hearts ripped out. Then the bodies of the victims were tossed down the steps of the pyramids. The scene to both the Spaniards of that time and to us today is truly gruesome. But it was not mere thirst for blood that motivated the Aztecs to engage in this mass ritual sacrifice.> There is no reason to belief this never happened, on the contrary. While your link denys any proof (which I do not agree with) he certainly does nothing in the way of disprooving mass sacrifices. Get a clue! While I admire your chivalry in defending the cultures there still remains no reason to believe they did not practice massive sacrifice and cannibalism on a wide scale, but rather the evidence suggest much the opposite.

The Aztecs worshipped a war god called Huitzilopochtli, who took on the likeness of the sun over time. It was thought that in order to insure the sun's arrival each day, a steady supply of human hearts had to be offered in holy sacrifice (Hogg:43). They believed that the sun and earth had already been destroyed four times, and in their time of the 5th sun, final destruction would soon be upon them. In order to delay this dreadful fate, the practice of human sacrifice became a major element in Aztec society and livelihood (Meyer & Sherman:67).

The most common form of sacrifice was performed outside, on the top of a great pyramid. The victim was spread-eagled on a round stone, with his back arched. His limbs were held, while a priest used an obsidian knife to cut under the rib cage and remove his heart. This method was used when honoring the sun god, Huitzilopochtli. Each god apparently preferred a different form of sacrifice. For the fertility god Xipe Totec, the person was tied to a post and shot full of arrows. His blood flowing out represented the cool spring rains (Meyer & Sherman:69). The fire god required a newly wed couple. They were thrown into the god's altars and allowed to burn and at the last minute they were taken out and had their hearts removed as a second offering (Hogg :48). The earth mother goddess, Teteoinnan, was extremely important. At harvest time, a female victim was flayed and her skin was carried ceremoniously to one of the temples. Her skin was worn by an officiating priest who then symbolized the goddess herself (Meyer & Sherman:44 Human sacrifices were seen in many different cultures in Latin American, such as Olmecs, Mayans and the Moche.
Bibliography
Hogg, Garry. Cannibalism and Human Sacrifice. The Citadel Press, New York 1966.

Meyer, Michael C. and William L. Sherman. The Course of Mexican History. Oxford University Press, 5th ed. 1995.

I'm confused about what this debat is about. Can anyone sumerise this for me?

It was origanally on the importance of the Spanish language, but its been deviating a bit, LOL

Sigma,

Quizas me puedas ayudar con Tim, tiene la mentalidad muy torcida encuanto a españa y al me parecer es un poco racista. ¿Te parece?

For "professor" Tim
In 1946 Sherburne Cook, a demographer specializing in American Indian populations, estimated an over-all annual mean of 15,000 victims in a central Mexican population reckoned at two million. Later, however, he and his colleague Woodrow Borah revised his estimate of the total central Mexican population upward to 25 million. Recently, Borah, possibly the leading authority on the demography of Mexico at the time of the conquest, has also revised the estimated number of persons sacrificed in central Mexico in the fifteenth century to 250,000 per year, equivalent to one percent of the total population. According to Borah, this figure is consistent with the sacrifice of an estimated 1,000 to 3,000 persons yearly at the largest of the thousands of temples scattered throughout the Aztec Triple Alliance. The numbers, of course, were fewer at the lesser temples, and may have shaded down to zero at the smallest.

These enormous numbers call for consideration of what the Aztecs did with the bodies after the sacrifices. Evidence of Aztec cannibalism has been largely ignored or consciously or unconsciously covered up. For example, the major twentieth-century books on the Aztecs barely mention it; others bypass the subject completely. Probably some modern Mexicans and anthropologists have been embarrassed by the topic: the former partly for nationalistic reasons; the latter partly out of a desire to portray native peoples in the best possible light. Ironically, both these attitudes may represent European ethnocentrism regarding cannibalism -- a viewpoint to be expected from a culture that has had relatively abundant livestock for meat and milk.

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/aztecs/sacrifice.htm

Yeah, I got that, but what are you guys going over now. ive tried reading all of it, and noe I'm lost. i think its about if the Spanish were more human to their slaves?

"humain" lol

Well, we been discussing some of the different view point between Inglish and Spanish colonizaion and their effects.

Tim seems to believe that the Spanish did nothing good for the natives of America or the world for that matter. Of course, he is very imersed in his Nordic supioriority complex. Some of us have been trying to educate him on reality. He adimantly critizises Spanish rule but says little of the massacres committed and atrocitise commited by his ancestory and heritage. And they are many! For example, the massacre of Irish Catholics by the English centuries later is a disgrace.

Ok cool, now that I'm caught up. I don't really think you can make a case for either. I may be getting off point here. But all cultures are guilty of the same crimes. Although some may have comitted the crimes more so than others, I don't think math should decide with is worse.

Frontera,
Perhaps you are correct. Although there are important distinguishing differences.

Truth be told you don't need a reason to hate the Engish, their English! But in all honesty from what I've got out of all of little I've read (and correct me if I'm wrong) your trying two count tip for tap, therers no way to know all the wrongs of each culture. before you read this rest of this post keep in mind that this is coming from one overly proud Italian.


The only thing consitant in most wrongs of this world, is that it almost always comes from the rich( go figure, right!). Now with that in mind, do think culture comes from the rich or the poor? If you ask me the poor and the crimes that have been comitted were comitted wearing the mask of the poor.

<<Yea they really knew how to use it, "wheel .. .restricted to ornaments." LOL >>

Okay, I get it. Native Americans were morons and incapable of inventing anything. Very funny.


<< the "noble savage" retoric. >>

In other word Native Americans were primitive and savage beasts that deserved to be murdered and their cultures wiped out. The Spaniards were angels who did the world a favour by killing them, even though Native Americans were in their own territories minding their own business.


<< Tim seems to believe that the Spanish did nothing good for the natives of America >>

More bigoted thinking. You think that if Spain was invaded and attacked and all its culture destroyed than that would be great? Because it seems to me that you believe it is okay that a civilization that poses no threat is attacked. Native American civilizations like others in the world had their GOOD and BAD. I'm not arguing that any civilization was superior. They were no different in this regard to anybody else. And yes the human sacrifice element was Spanish propaganda to dehumanize Native Americans and justify atrocities like you are doing right now. The Spanish invasion had nothing to do with being good and everything to do with greed and self-interest.

<<He adimantly critizises Spanish rule but says little of the massacres committed and atrocitise commited by his ancestory and heritage.>>

You have the reasoning of a little boy caught up in proving who's got the better toys. Read the other book that historybuff recommended:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060194766/ref=pd_sbs_b_5/002-5859659-3580049?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155

All these achievement's that you attribute solely to Spain should also be attributed to the "INDIANS" and others that played an integral part in forming the "empire". It wasn't as simplistic as it is told today, it involved several others as well.

At least the spanish didnt exterminate all the native people like the americans did.So compared to you the spanish were "angels".