One reason this hypothetical is difficult is it's hard to see an industrialised society, with the associated level of knowledge about the mechanics of the universe, continue to believe their religion so literally that the state can continue to claim they need to burn human hearts to sustain the sun and immolate people to keep the rains and crops going, and maintain the social license to, you know, publicly do that.
Freedom of Religion: Aztecs
- Thread starter Zardnaar
- Start date
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
I disagree that in most cases, genocidal violence would stop with the destruction of the targeted portion of the population. Most genocide, while borne out of nationalism, are also tool for movements or leaders to obtain or preserve their power by rallying an ingroup behind them against an "enemy" out-group that must be destroyed. The end of the out-group thus threaten the power of the movement or leaders, because they have no one to rally the people against anymore. They're far more likely to direct their enimity at new outgroups, and co tinue the killing.
Henri Christophe
L'empereur
What group in Aztec case? I guess they took just prisioners of war, as the Tlaxtaltecas to the humans sacrifice...
I guess if it's survive untill our days, México should be in a perpetual state of war to supply hearts to moviment the sun.
Lexicus
Deity
How human sacrifice helped to enforce social inequality | Aeon Ideas
Human sacrifice was used by social elites to remove dissidents, instill fear and justify authority in early societies
aeon.co
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Henri, please re-read my post.
I'm adressing the claim that genocide end when the original target group is destroyed (and thus is better than Aztecs human sacrifices, which has no reason to end)l
I'm not talking about the Aztecs targeting out-groups.
I'm adressing the claim that genocide end when the original target group is destroyed (and thus is better than Aztecs human sacrifices, which has no reason to end)l
I'm not talking about the Aztecs targeting out-groups.
Zardnaar
Deity
I used the Aztecs as an example not pushing white supremacy or whatever.
Could be ISIS for a more modern example.
Just wondering where one draws the line with invading somewhere due to their religious views assuming it's a death cult type scenario en masse.
Could be ISIS for a more modern example.
Just wondering where one draws the line with invading somewhere due to their religious views assuming it's a death cult type scenario en masse.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Thought so. This is why I answered as I did.
There are certain things that shouldn't be done, and in a way legitimize force being done to end it. Problem is just that wars don't work for this. We're dealing with a hypothetical, of course, but when it comes to a moral question, it has to take reality into account.
Invasive wars may make things slightly better, but usually either makes things worse or doesn't change things. We've seen this in practice in basically every war ever. The premise depends on the idea that you make things better. Installing a liberal government doesn't work even when stated as the intended goal. You might say that it's because the wars are actually opportunistic and geopolitical in nature, securing resources, but I'd point out that yes, this is true, and we have to think of this as part of the premise, since that's what war is as practice, even today.
It's worked like two times off the top of my head. WW2 Germany and Japan.
Zardnaar
Deity
It's worked more than that, it's just you have to go fill Genghis Khan/thought police to do it. Islam and Christianity slower basically by making everything else illegal and waiting several hundred years.
Aztecs aren't around no more, Romans wiped the Druids out.
Henri Christophe
L'empereur
In the end of the day, both ISIS and Aztecs was invaded by outsiders and aniquilated due it's religious positions.
Zardnaar
Deity
Yup. I didn't think of ISIS in OP.
That's a sudden onset of religious executions. I feel like a situation where there's just ongoing murder make it harder to figure that it should be stopped. Part of what distinguishes ISIS is that it was also an attempt to stop a new nation from forming.
Zardnaar
Deity
Yeah imperialism is fairly crappy but things usually settle down post conquest.
Aztecs not so much. Their imperial system sucked a lot.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
There are references in the Bible that hint at human sacrifices were practiced as well
But eventually as the religion evolved ? changed this practice was discontinued and then simply hidden.
Id imagine as the advance of scientific knowledge erodes Aztec beliefs system, they too will adapt by changing their religious dogmas or simply be swept away by the the more flexible religion(s)
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
I don't think the Roman Empire was a humane system at all. Neither do I think Genghis Khan's religious tolerance or good trade conditions legitimizes what happened to eg Baghdad, and as we saw after the fall of the Mongols, it mostly lead to more nonsense wars, invasions and nationwide slaughter. Before liberalism, wars were replacement of aristocracy with other aristocracy for the sake of aristocratic power.
But that's not even really the point. When we discuss the supposed end of Aztec crimes against humanity in the modern age, I presume it's part of a humanist agenda to end such structures. A dictator will rise. The institutions present to make such a system possible will not disappear. The goal is liberalization, is the point, not to create another Syria. Which doesn't work as an argument to end something bad by invading.
Or maybe I misread your argument - it's just that I know your political position. You like liberalism and is on the left side of things. Ie I believe you believe this whole invasion is for the sake of human rights. I don't believe you're the kind of person who thinks Talibanization is the solution to this? Because if so, again - you will murder millions. To the end of making place for the rise of dictatorship and abuse.
Ukraine is really part of Russia but to make it actually part of Russia Putin needs to kill or drive away any Ukrainians who think differently. Nationalism gone Crazy.
Zardnaar
Deity
In my country, and similar. What the Taliban get up to in Afghanistan is on them as long as they don't export it via violence.
That might change based on Taliban's actions (sheltering active terrorists, going full ISIS etc).
Foreign intervention should be a last resort. We're not there yet (with the Taliban).
There's lots of odious regimes I don't support removing them just for that reason.
Romans practiced human sacrifice very early (500BC iirc) but it wasn't widespread and was during crisis iirc.
It wasn't a day to day thing afaik.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
First couple of sentences puzzle me. Mostly because of the very first ("In my country, and similar.") Which of my things are you answering specifically? Could apply to a few of my notes.
I didn't bring up the Romans because of human sacrifice in particular, but because of other things. Widespread military-fed slavery and fascistoid military structure that were not pleasant as they conquered. Yea yea aqueducts and reasonably decent standard of living after the fact, but it was made solely to facilitate further slaughter. Which they then did. Even during their ambiguous period of prosperity, there was repeatedly internal instability and crisises due to a crap system. Then they eventually failed to be able to do conquer, and the aftermath was not pretty. (Even if the "dark" part of those ages is overstated.)
You brought up the Romans as an example that was able to wipe out cultures. I note this wasn't a good thing. Even if you don't care about the culture in question.
But even then they're a bad example. We're talking about liberalist invasions. I literally know only two succesful examples there. Picking up a few more doesn't change the fact that the vast majority ended badly. And I'm not gonna roll the dice with millions of people with those odds. It's why I don't gamble.
EDIT Not making an example of your position in this edit! Still, I want to muse about something. I'm remniscent of an exchange with a (pretty far) right winger I know in Denmark. He asked me why the left was so indifferent as to the plights of people in nations of suppression. Such hypocricy of the left to claim to support freedom and rights and then do nothing when so many people suffer. Why aren't we invading more people? I noted to him that leftists generally just thing it's a practically bad idea. It doesn't work. I pointed to recent adventures in the Middle East. He was like, oh, right. He hadn't even realized that was a position one could have. That the problem with war is that it, well, just kills a lot of people and usually makes things worse. And that's why leftists don't generally want to do this as much as people like him.
Last edited:
Zardnaar
Deity
I'm a leftie in the context of countries with similar values and economic systems.
That means I'm willing to tolerate fairly crappy regimes existence espicially if they have very different cultures and values. Assuming they stay in their own borders.
And intervention doesn't work.
The move away from human sacrifice probably was something prominent in many societies. It has been argued that such might be (along with other things) alluded to with the order of Cronos, in pre-archaic Greece, resolved with the mythical Titanomachia.
Then again you at least need some competition with other states for the social incentive, and the Aztecs probably had assimilated all previous orders in their domain. It might have been pretty scary and cruel to be part of Aztec society, but likely it was still preferable to leaving it and becoming pretty much a feral entity in the borders to that domain.
That said, afaik the spanish did quickly find some local allies against the Aztec rule, so when even this type of alternative appeared, some people were willing to support it. It's pretty ridiculous how few spanish in that first contact managed to bring down an empire.
Tezcatlipoca WH40K
Then again you at least need some competition with other states for the social incentive, and the Aztecs probably had assimilated all previous orders in their domain. It might have been pretty scary and cruel to be part of Aztec society, but likely it was still preferable to leaving it and becoming pretty much a feral entity in the borders to that domain.
That said, afaik the spanish did quickly find some local allies against the Aztec rule, so when even this type of alternative appeared, some people were willing to support it. It's pretty ridiculous how few spanish in that first contact managed to bring down an empire.
Tezcatlipoca WH40K
Last edited:
Zardnaar
Deity
The empire was unstable and badly administrated.
Similar threads
