The Mesoamerican Thread

[Evie]

With all due respect, Pokiehl, I submit given his lengthy posting history and discussion of related topics that Henri is perfectly aware of the loaded nature and meaning of the word "racism".

As to his topics of interest, I'll note I've agreed with him on a number of them, and my main topic of disagreements with him are his attempts to present the Toltecs as a historically documented civilization despite the archaeological record simply not supporting that interpretation; and his proposal to have people of african origin be the primary or sole leader of Indian or Indigenous American tribes. I've agreed with him on any number ofmother topics, and have been vocal in my support of some of his ideas (Haiti) and have defended him at times too.

If you look at all the different *topics* Henri has brought up, I've been on his side as often as not over the years. The only reason it seems otherwise is because he's brought up *this* one far more often than any of the others (though in this particular instance, I brought it up), and on that one, he's presenting dated scholarship that flies in the face of what archaeology and all other research tells us.

In short. The shoe doesn't fit so, thanks but no thanks, not wearing it.

 

[Patine]

I don't want to offend anyone, but not consider the historiography of a people because they made very different from western method, for me, it's a error.

There are a discussion similar as that in ancient Greece, when we compare the historiography of Herotodo and Teucidides.
Teucidides are like you, who like a real and true history... But, I don't see any problem with Herotodo who wrote down everthing he listening, however if it's plausible or mythical.

And even if Herotodo have a lot of mythical histories in his book, it still today a great reference of history of ancient world

So, basically, you make a roundabout, non-committal nothing statement that makes little sense, but haven't retracted your vicious insult or apologized. I still insist on the apology and retraction on an unacceptable and false claim, without this dissembling. Do the honourable thing, Henri.

 

[Evie]

Henri, we'Re not ignoring the historiography of the Aztecs. You have repeated that many time, but it remains as false now as it was then.

The Aztecs are probably a generally good source on Aztec history. They were there, they lived it, and while we may question some specific claims when they contradict what archaeology tells us and when we have good reason to believe this is something the Aztecs would have reason to aggrandize or exaggerate (note that we treat other sources the same: we do not accept things like troop numbers in ancient, classical and medieval sources at face value either!) We thus generally accept what the Aztec historiography has to say about the Aztecs.

But the Aztecs were not there for Toltec history. They did not witness it. They are only at best repeating what other people have told them ; at worst making up their own claims based on what fit their own cultural preconceptions of who the people who lived in those ruins should be. We would not accept that as a solid source in Europe, and we don't in Mesoamerica either. In those cases, we look for other sources, for supportive evidence that actually would confirm what they tell us. We do not believe Herodotus about Babylon being a massive metropolis with a hundred gates, because Archaeology does not support the claim. We should not believe the Aztecs when they tell us about the size and scale of the Toltec empire, either, because archaeology does not support that claim either.

The more direct the connection between a source and what it tell us, and the better supported by other evidence, the more likely we are to believe it. The more remote the source, and the more it contradicts our other evidence, the more skeptical we are likely to be - on that particular topic. We believe the Aztecs about themselves, because they were there to witness their own history, and because archaeology and Spanish sources largely tend to confirm what the Aztecs say. But on the Toltecs, the Aztecs where not there, did not witness the Toltec's history, and their claims are not supported by archaeology or by other sources - so we do not believe them.

That's proper history. We do not accept ANY source at face value ; we do not accept any source as the full and unbiased truth. INstead, for each source, we evaluate all the claims they make, and, based on all the evidence we have, try to determine what we think.

Doing it any other way is a lack of rigor and seriousness.

 

[Vahnstad]

Muisca
Argentina
Brazil
Inca
Mapuche

for South America

Cuba and/or Haiti (or Taino)
Aztecs
Mayans
countless other options i'm less familiar with such as Zapotecs and Olmecs but i think Aztecs are very iconic

For Colombia & Mexico i'm not necessarily against those, but i'm afraid it would go at the cost of Muisca & Aztecs.

 

[Patine]

Cuba

Cuba with whom as leader? An American puppet, a visionary foiled by American intervention, a REALLY horrible and hated American puppet, opporessive, murderous depot, Mafia collaborator, and bloody-handed land thief just setting the stage for a revolution against him (which promptly came and sent him packing in a boat full of gold bullion and national treasures), or a popular Marxist Revolutionary who became a cruel and brutal tyrant, arguably exacerbated by the necessities of an embargo, and who died in the 21st Century?

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Muisca
Argentina
Brazil
Inca
Mapuche

for South America

Cuba and/or Haiti (or Taino)
Aztecs
Mayans
countless other options i'm less familiar with such as Zapotecs and Olmecs but i think Aztecs are very iconic

For Colombia & Mexico i'm not necessarily against those, but i'm afraid it would go at the cost of Muisca & Aztecs.

9/10. The only things that I really see wrong are the fact that Cuba doesn't have good leader choices and I don't want the Perons, which is why I'd be cautious if Civ were to say they were going to add Argentina without telling me who the leader would be.

 

[GeneralZIft]

Would love Cuba. Just because its complicated history would make for a good Civ to work with.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Cuba with whom as leader?

The only reasonable pick I can think of is someone who technically never lead but was a national hero: Jose Marti.

Would love Cuba. Just because its complicated history would make for a good Civ to work with.

I'd say that makes it harder. Haiti or the Taino would be easier to make a civ out of.