Aztecs: No Human Sacrifice?

 

From a friend's comment on FB:

1) The Romans actually DID, by their own admission, practice ritual human sacrifice...they just didn't think of it as sacrifice, even though the deaths were dedicated to gods and spirits. (this including gladiatorial games and executions "ad bestium" when prisoners would be put through elaborate animal executions).

2) These accounts came from the Spanish during a time when they were literally burning people alive at the stake for crimes like "having a neighbour call you a witch" and "being Jewish".

Main Topic: Aztlán Times group on FB

Mexica (Aztec) Sacrifice Debunked?:

"This may explain why no massive catacombs with what would have been the bones of sacrifice victims have ever been found in Mesoamerica."

"There is absolutely no proof that the Mexika (Aztecs) practiced mass human sacrifice. Spanish lies and archeological evidence are NOT I repeat, are NOT proof. Everything that has been written on anything pertaining to the Mexika was written by the Spanish or codex writers under the guidance and supervision of Spanish monks. Allow me to introduce this article by a world expert, ethnologist on this matter... 

"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." - Peter Hassler, ethnologist at the University of Zurich.

Copyright World Press Review.

"An aura of lurid fascination surrounds our interest in the Aztecs, the people who, at the beginning of the 16th century, inhabited one of the largest cities of the world: Tenochtitlan. In 1521, this metropolis was erased from the face of the Earth by the Spanish conquerors under Hernando Cortes and his Indian allies. 

As a justification for their destructive acts, the conquistadors generated propaganda designed to offend the sensibilities of their Christian audience: They described the Aztec practice of human sacrifice. Later chronicles by Spanish writers, missionaries, and even Indian converts also told repeatedly of this cult. Even when scientists called these reports grossly exaggerated, the fact that the Aztecs sacrificed humans remained undisputed. Cutting out the victim's heart with an obsidian knife [fashioned from volcanic glass] was supposedly the most common method of sacrifice, although other forms were practiced as well. 

These included beheading, piercing with spears or arrows, and setting victims against each other in unequal duels. We are also told that some victims were literally skinned alive; a priest then donned this macabre "skin suit" to perform a ritual dance. 

There has been no shortage of theories and explanations for what lay behind these archaic cults. 

Some researchers have deemed them religious rituals. Others have called them displays of repressed aggression and even a method of regulating population. 

Although human sacrifice has been the subject of much writing, there has been almost no critical examination of the sources of information about it. 

A critical review is urgently needed. 

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." 

The scene of these sacrificial rituals was the main temple in the island-city of Tenochtitlan. The observers, however, were watching from their camp on the shore of a lake three or four miles away. 

From that point, Diaz could have neither seen nor heard anything. To follow the action at the foot of the pyramid, he would have to have been inside the temple grounds. But this would have been impossible: The Aztecs had just beaten back the Spanish and their allies, who had been besieging the city from all sides. 

But Diaz is not the inventor of the legend of ritual murder. Cortes fathered the lie in 1522, when he wrote a shorter version of the tale to Emperor Charles V. He would have been confident that his reports would find ready ears, for in the 15th and 16th centuries many lies were being spread in Spain about ritual murders carried out by the Jews, who were being expelled from the Iberian peninsula along with the Moors. Cortes' lies were a tremendous success: They have endured for almost 500 years without challenge. 

Along with the lies of the conquistadors, there also have been secondhand reports--what could be called "hearsay evidence"--in the writings of Spanish missionaries and their Indian converts, who, in their new-found zeal, scorned their old religion. 

The accounts are filled with vague and banal phrases such as, "And thus they sacrificed," which indicates that the writers cannot have witnessed a real human sacrifice. 

The only concrete evidence comes to us not from the Aztecs but from the Mayan civilization of the Yucatan. These depictions are found in the records of trials conducted during the Inquisition, between 1561 and 1565. These supposed testimonies about human sacrifice, however, were coerced from the Indians under torture and have been judged worthless as ethnographic evidence. 

Along with the written accounts, many archeological finds--sculptures, frescoes, wall paintings, and pictographs--have been declared by the Spanish, their Indian converts, and later anthropologists to be connected to human sacrifice. Yet these images are in no way proof that humans were in fact sacrificed. Until now, scientists have started from a position of believing the lies and hearsay reports and interpreting the archeological evidence accordingly. 

The circularity of such reasoning is obvious. There are plenty of possible interpretations of the images of hearts and even killings in these artifacts. They could depict myths or legends. 

They could present narrativ images--allegories, symbols, and metaphors. They could even be images of ordinary executions or murders. 

Human bones that appear to have been cut also do not serve as evidence of human sacrifice. In tantric Buddhism, skulls and leg bones are used to make musical instruments used in religious rituals; this is in no way connected to human sacrifice. 

Leslie J. Furst, a student of symbols used by the Aztecs, has seen depictions of magic where others have seen tales of human sacrifice. 

For example, one image shows the incarnation of a female god "beheaded" in the same way that a plant's blossom is removed in the ritual connected to the making of pulque, an alcoholic drink. 

Why scholars have interpreted images of self-beheadings and other things that depart from physical reality as evidence of human sacrifice will puzzle future generations. 

There is another important symbolic background for images of killing in Aztec artifacts: the initiation ceremony, whose central event is the mystical death. The candidate "dies" in order to be reborn. This "death" in imaginary or symbolic forms often takes on a dramatic shape in imagery--such as being chopped to pieces or swallowed by a monster. 

There has been no research into the symbolism of death in the high culture of the Indians of Mesoamerica, however, even though there were many reincarnation myths among these peoples. 

The ritual of "human skinning" surely belongs in this same category. In our depictions, we see the skin removed quickly from the victim, with a single cut along the spine, and coming off the body in a single piece. 

This is scarcely practicable. This "human skin suit" may be nothing but a metaphorical-symbolic representation, as indeed is appropriate for the image-rich Aztec language. 

All of the heart and blood symbolism may be just a metaphor for one of the Aztecs' favorite drinks, made from cacao. The heart is a symbolically important organ in more than just European cultures. 

In the Indian languages, as well, it is a symbol of courage and the soul.  "Cutting the soul from the body," after all, is not a surgical operation. This may explain why no massive catacombs with what would have been the bones of sacrifice victims have ever been found in Mesoamerica."

From the liberal weekly "Die Zeit" of Hamburg. Peter Hassler, an ethnologist at the University of Zurich, is the author of "Human Sacrifice Among the Aztecs? A Critical Study," published recently in Switzerland."

-Richard Ome Cuauhtli Flores

The "Problem" With Diversity

Interview with Patrick Stewart:
Q: Did they hold your baldness against you?
PS: That came up at the very first press conference. A reporter asked Gene Roddenberry, "Look, you know, it doesn't make sense, you've got a bald actor playing this part. Surely, by the 24th century, they will have found the cure for male pattern baldness." And Gene Roddenberry said, "No, by the 24th century, no one will care." It was one of the nicest things that have ever been said about men like me.

In a perfect world, diversity wouldn't be an issue. It would be accepted that people can be different, and there's nothing wrong with being different. That's the goal -- that people can be different and celebrate that difference, and it wouldn't make even a ripple in society -- you could celebrate with them, or just go about your life.

But here's the problem.  It's the difference between small-c conservatives and small-l liberals, but it's a very significant difference. With conservatives, conformity gives a feeling of safety / security. The people around you are like you, hold the same values, the same interests - that's 'secure'. Small-l liberals are a bit more open to things being different - the people around you aren't always like you, and can even be different - but it doesn't trigger that insecurity as much.  Does it go away completely? Of course not - everyone has their tolerance limits.

But that security thing is the big thing.
A 'fight or flight' instinct kicks in once in awhile when a person feels threatened - so a person with a strong conservative mindset runs into something which challenges their values or mindset - which doesn't 'conform' to what they feel is 'right', they try to either retreat from it, or they attack it.

And that sucks.

And to note: You can be Liberal and still be conservative. We've got relatives like that. For example, they'll comment on a person's tattoos, or hair colour / style, or their clothing, or whatever - when it's not their business. They act Liberal in a lot of other ways - but diversity is the hard one for them to swallow. "Well, yes, black people should have equal rights, but do they have to act so black?"

And our response is 'why does it matter to you?' Should you charge rent for that living space in your head you've built for them?

The thing is, that mindset -- that feeling challenged by people not acting the way you want them to act, or looking the way you want them to look -- it's very hard to 'fix' that. Part of it is education, part of it is acclimation -- but that's only part of it.

Education is: This is who they are, this is what it means to be them.
Acclimation is: They can be themselves in public, they can celebrate their culture and lifestyle. This is normal.

The big problem is this: that doesn't get rid of it. That only quietens it down. You see that from when Trump came to power. All those people who would normally stay quiet or internalise their dislike were suddenly free to speak out and act out and push back.  It went from 'flight' to 'fight'.

There's no real cure for this, that we can think of. Education and acclimation, is all we can do. The rest is up to the individuals -- they don't have to like it (though that would be nice) but they need to accept it's normal to be different.

Artificial Intelligence

Re: AI.

I'm on the fence when it comes to AI when it comes to accessing the internet to learn. And here's where the line is for me:

-- if it is accessing paid sites, or places where you're expected to log in and/or spend money to access places, that shouldn't be on the list of things it can learn from.

-- if it is something open to the public, that anyone with eyeballs has access to... something you can read without a subscription, something you can watch (like YouTube), or similar, then I more or less consider it fair game.

Part of the 'right to be forgotten' thing in the UK came from some guy making a program which pieced together a person's identity from information available to the public. And what he was doing wasn't illegal - anyone with the time and some effort could do what his program did.

The issue: it did it TOO QUICKLY. It completely cut the time and effort that a normal human would put into searching for information on a person and putting it all together.

And the courts ruled THAT to be the problem... if a person did it on their own time and worked on it, sure, fine. The moment it became easy, it was an issue, because just anyone could do it then.

And, a part of me is seeing it reflected in the AI situation. An AI can use hundreds of thousands of bits of writing, artwork, media, whatever, and draw upon it all in an instant to do what it does. Of course, a human being can do the same thing ... but that takes time and effort, and most people don't have the skills, either.

The AI 'learns' much as we do - bits and pieces here and there, putting it together, then figuring out our own thing. Not everyone takes the time to do it well - we're not all artists. But the AI can take what it's learned, and put it to use in a flash.

It's doing what we do, but faster, and without the need for the proper skills. It's the same 'sin'.

But hasn't this always been the sin of machines? Jobs which used to require humans are being done more and more by machines, which can do it more efficiently, without requiring years of training to get to where it is. How are we for turning the clock back on that?

I get it.  People are staking their livelihood on this. But that's always been the case since the first person dropped a machine into place to replace a human being. I don't think we're ever going to go back.

And I'm worried about the litigation. Yes, there should be restrictions on where an AI can go to learn - but for me that restriction is the registration / paywall.  If it's out in the open? It's out in the open. If it's something a normal person (without registration / subscription) can access, it should have access.

Is it fair?

I don't know. The guy who wrote that program to get all the information that's publically accessible on anyone... was it fair that he could do in an instant what it would normally take days to do?

Was it fair to shut that down? When, again, anyone could do it?

And that's why I'm on the fence.

Emotion vs Reason. And I always have trouble with that, because a part of me goes 'yeah, I feel it, I can see what's at stake' and a part of me goes 'yeah, but rationally...'

And that side doesn't care about 'fair' in the emotional sense. It cares about ... consistency.  If a person can do it, a machine should be allowed to do it, too.

"But it isn't creating anything"

No, not yet it isn't. Some day, it will.  But what it's doing is adapting a bunch of information it's gained, sorting through it, and choosing the 'best' outcomes it can reason. Anyone who's spent years learning off another person's style is doing similar things. They're adding their own touches over time - their own style to it - but they learned on the backs of those before them.

AI is moving to that point, I think, and I think people don't LIKE that. But it's going to happen. A part of me feels this is the usual 'machines are taking our jobs', and the significant backlash is because it's in ART, which is the domain of 'humanity'. But if we're going to get fully cognizant AI at some point... Art isn't going to be off the table, now is it?

And what are those AI to learn from?

In the Way

Samantha

Nothing ends the day like feeling like you're an inconvenience in someone else's life. Being reminded how much you have to depend on others just to be able to have anything resembling a normal life - being able to do normal things.  Being more than just an afterthought.

Everyone who actually thinks about me as me lives in another province, or another fucking country. The people around me? If I disappeared for a few months, I doubt they'd even notice. Hell, I could probably fall off the planet and I think maybe one person might notice, because that one person actually takes the time to reach out and talk to me from time to time.

I pointed out my little brother, Daryl, is neglected all the time. When he does come up, he's met with behave or no. The kid can't get a break, because there's nobody who's really interested in the same things he's interested in, or has the time to just sit down and play with him and talk with him.  He's got a few toys now, but they 'take up space' and have to be put away for more adult things, so he gets discouraged and just ... stops playing.

Really.  I just want a stable relationship, and friends who see me for me, not as a +1 to Kit's life.  I want to be able to go do things with friends, without feeling like I'm being a burden for simply existing and wanting things.

And I was having such a good weekend, too.

Green Eyes

Samantha:

Alright, I admit it. I'm jealous. I'm jealous as hell. I'm so incredibly jealous it isn't funny. I'm the jealous type, and I know it.

And I'm not going to do a damn thing about it, because I have no fucking right to. Of course I've got the right to be jealous, but I've got no right to do anything about it, or to give grief, or to upset the ones involved in this.

Because, really, it wouldn't be fair. I want them to be happy, to enjoy themselves, to be a wonderful couple together. They both deserve that oh-so-much, and damn but it's about time fate gave them a break (for entirely different reasons).

But damn I'm upset. I had an opportunity for a brief period of time - even tentatively had a 'thing', but they weren't ready and changed their mind and I respected the fuck out of their decision because that's the kind of woman I am.

But that hurt, then. And this hurts, now. And I'm going to suck it up and cope, since it's the right thing to do.

Slime, Spiders, and Shinto Philosophy

Kit: A friend introduced us to the anime, "The Time I was Reincarnated as a Slime". We'd been avoiding that one, because we thought it was going to be too silly (as opposed to, say, 'I was Reincarnated as a Spider, so What?'.  We're really glad that we were able to watch them both.  (We've been through the first season on both, and we're deep into the manga for the Spider one -- we might need to grab the manga for the slime one, not sure yet).

Spoilers Below.  Lots of Spoilers.

So here's the thing. We've noticed that anime strongly follows the Shinto philosophy on a lot of points, and these two anime do so even more than normal. It's the kind of storytelling we enjoy, actually.  Go figure.

There's some key take-aways from Slime.
In Shinto, natural forces are not considered evil - they act in accordance to their nature without malice. Outside factors may cause them to 'misbehave' - essentially an imbalance. A person is, for the most part, essentially good, but is not naturally balanced, so can cause imbalance / tragedy / conflict. Taking a life is a tragedy - an unclean act and one of the gravest sins of Shinto, but Shinto isn't about good vs evil, or punishing sin - it is about trying to find your own balance and harmony.

Also - what is in the past is in the past. You learn from it, but you don't let it control you. When dealing with others, you interact with them as if meeting them for the first time, and greet them as you would a neutral party until you discern how they are going to act now. This doesn't mean ignoring past actions - you can be as wary as you wish to be - but you don't bring up negative things from the past unless you plan to attempt to resolve them then and there.

So.  Let's look at Slime.
The main character abhors taking life unless absolutely necessary - typically when in the defence of others, not itself. There is the rare example, but these are things that are a significant, dire threat, unintelligent, or will not relent. The slime tries to restrain enemies and offer them an opportunity to surrender or leave if possible.

Most enemies are enemies because of outside stresses or misunderstandings.
The restrained dragon? Befriended and a pact made.

The goblins? Befriended and watched after.

The dire wolves trying to kill the goblins? The hostile leader would not relent, and died. The rest? Spared and made allies.

The dwarves?  Aided (even when imprisoned!) and allied.

The ogres? They lost their entire tribe and thought the slime was a maijin. Allied.

The obnoxious lizardfolk? Sent away, alive. Allied later.

The orc horde who devoured everyone and anything in their path? The leader had been effectively 'possessed', and manipulated by the said maijin.  The slime ate him, discovered his tragic past of trying to save his tribe during famine, and gave him peace (sent him effectively to heaven). Then took the sins of the entire tribe even after they'd killed thousands (while cursed), put their past actions in the past, and gave them a home and a life. Consider them a 'natural phenomenon' that was driven to anger by outside forces. Once that was dealt with? It was considered in the past - who the orcs are now is what is important.

It is this attitude that allowed the slime to befriend a chaotic demon lord. He was able to get to the core of why she was who she was, and they became 'besties'. She's so chaotic because she is bored.

The scummy human that caused such problems in the dwarven city? He was only trying to be worthy of the king - and had lost his way due to envy. He was, in fact, not a bad guy, just a desperate guy. His past actions were set aside and he was given a home and work and befriended.

When a catboi gets possessed by a horrific demon? He's rescued, the demon slain, and he gets healed and returned to his master. His master's impressed with the slime's show of mercy and understanding, and they become allies.

The ifrit possessing someone he cares for, that's tearing down the town the slime's built? Captured and absorbed. Given a chance to become a better person.

Don't look at me, you don't want to see me this way...

 Samantha

Fuck.

Fuckity fuck fuck fuck.

On the one hand.. I'm really glad for them. I want them to be happy. I want their life to be good. I want the best for them. They deserve it so very much.

On the other hand.. losing something I was looking forward to, before I even had the chance to experience it.. that hurts.

And I don't want to be selfish.

I ... just wanted someone I could hold, and feel close to, and who'd be there for me and I could be there for them. I wanted that intimacy (not sex, sex was never on the table), and by the goddess she was so adorable. She was ephemeral and bright and ethereal and fun and...

And not mine.

And I want to cry. I'm trying not to. Because crying means I'm not celebrating that she's found someone. She deserves this happiness, and I don't want to be selfish.

I mean, yeah. I've got the long distance thing. That gives me ... some emotional support, and can make me happy ... but I want someone who's there, who I can hold onto, who sees me and acknowledges me, and wants me.

And the chances of me getting that are so, so slim. And it isn't like I've got lot of time to find someone.

She was... perfect, you know? Perfect in so many ways. I felt a kindred there.

I want her to be happy, I'm glad she's going to be happy.

I just wanted to be the one to make her happy.