About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 12:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
But Tibor, the Incans were operating from a different cultural perspective and we can't judge their actions by western standards, it's simply unfair to judge them through the rules of dead white males who-

Sorry, just having fun. Spot on.
Actually, this reminds me of an episode of a cartoon, KING OF THE HILL, that features a Native American character who was suing the government for ancestral land. The Indian is protesting thanksgiving for the usual reasons, and his son is discovering his heritage. The son learns about the cannibal side of his particular Indian tribal heritage, which makes him disgusted with the whole thing. The joke of the show is that the son does not know that the Indian is his real father, since the mother was sleeping with the Indian and told her husband, a "hillbilly redneck", that the son was his. It was actually pretty well played out, and the show often acts in defense of Western culture (in a cracker barrel sort of way) against PC liberalism and tribalism.

Post 1

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 3:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tell me again what sort of way it is that barrels loaded with crackers make useful allies against tribalism and stuff??


Post 2

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 5:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ahem...I like crackers. I'm a cracker. My family
crackers. We're all crackers. (10 points if you get the reference.)



Post 3

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 5:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Since a 'cracker' is a Floridian born and raised, this makes you somewhere in this state, Joe... sure you be a cracker?

Post 4

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 6:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Heh...almost. I've only been in Florida once, but my mom's familiy grew up there...I didn't even think of that.
(Actually, it's a movie reference, though...).

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 6:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm here to collect my ten points!

When I was a younger buck and older afro-American fella gave me the rundown on the slang.

Cracker- White person usually of some rural backround that is disrespectful to black people, comparing them to slave overseers or whip crackers.

Honky- Refers to the practice of town whites that would honk their car horns to startle black people walking the street. Though, the term is the most generally used for all whites.

Peckerwood- Refers to a white man who displays some prowess with at least 2 of 3 traits. The traits being singing, dancing, and screwing. Elvis was considered the ultimate peckerwood by most older black folks according to my gracious teacher.

Never could get a straight anwer for what an ofay was.

Bill Sipes


Post 6

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 7:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Silly Bill, it's in the dictionary!
Main Entry: ofay
Pronunciation: 'O-"fA, O-'
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
usually disparaging : a white person


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 7:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Although some attribute it to pig latin for 'foe', most etymologists think it is a corruption of the french 'au fait' meaning proper or socially acceptable; and that it originated among blacks in Louisianna.

Post 8

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 3:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Very fine job.  We are silent about the Incas but the Aztecs and the North American Indians.  On the whole question of Columbus ARI did a lecture about the whole topic that is an excellent remedyfor political correctness .

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 9:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The only thing that can be done that will make a difference is to stop all this collective praise and blame and to recognize that justice requires looking at and judging all human beings individually, based on their own choices to act well or badly
 
Wonderful, and thank you.

With that particular example, let's get real: neither side were ones I'd invite over for a weenie roast. And, who was breaking into whose turf in the name of civilization?  What a nasty rumble.

The Incas took the big equatorial mistake to a brutal, celestial art form. Joseph Campbell describes the general problem in his book "Myths to Live By"- the core problem is a little different (not specifically a Sun God, etc.) but you'll get the idea.

…In those zones, furthermore, the common sight of rotting vegetation giving rise to new green shoots seems to have inspired a mythology of death as the giver of life; whence the hideous idea followed that the way to increase life is to increase death. The result has been, for millenniums, a general rage of sacrifice through the whole tropical belt of our planet, quite in contrast to the comparatively childish ceremonies of animal-worship-and-appeasement of the hunters of the great plains: brutal human as well as animal sacrifices, highly symbolic in detail; sacrifices also of fruits of the field, of the first-born, of widows on their husbands’ graves, and finally of entire courts together with their kings.  The mythic theme of Willing Victim has become associated here with the image of a primordial being that in the beginning offered itself to be slain, dismembered, and buried; and from whose buried parts then arose the food plants by which the lives of the people are sustained.

Nasty enough. The Spaniards had their own demons, though.


Post 10

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 11:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tibor Machan asserted: "What was quite interesting about the program, aside from all the natural and cultural lessons it contained, is that the narrator said absolutely nothing about the human sacrifices that used to be standard fare under the reign of the Incas. As many as 200 children used to be killed to please some god or another. And sometimes the sacrifice would involve cutting out the heart of a living individual."
I do not find that supported by the known evidence.  Given that perhaps most of what we know about mesoamericans in general came from the conquistadores, we have only archaeological remains to fit into a matrix of understanding.

Lone mummies are known.  Different ceremonies are posited for different finds.  In fact, that may be the case: there may have been no one ceremony. 

In any event, I would like to see some support for this claim that up to 200 children would be killed at one time.


 


Post 11

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 11:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill Sipes claimed: "Honky- Refers to the practice of town whites that would honk their car horns to startle black people walking the street. Though, the term is the most generally used for all whites"

That is not true.  All of the reliable etymologies point to the obvious: hunky, bohunk, and hunyak, etc., names for Hungarians, Bohemians, and others.  Secondary theories derive from "honky tonk" a cheap bar, from the the music played therein. 


Post 12

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 11:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In any event, I would like to see some support for this claim that up to 200 children would be killed at one time.
 
I'm not sure it's worth looking into. If you look at it in terms of the regional situation that Campbell describes, if it didn't happen just so, it was more than made up for one way or another. Fact is, you might be right, in my eyes. That's because it looks an awful lot like they practiced economies and efficiencies in their blood sacrifices. It became more advanced and ritually stylized. They could get the same or better punch out of a single sacrifice, given the size of the dog and pony show they had together. No real standards in this on the whole, but it makes sense that the refinement included reducing the need for mass sacrifice.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure a lot of the cultures upped the vig if it kept not working out the regular way.




Post 13

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 11:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Some information comes from a source that would not likely demean the Incas: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/peru/worlds/sacrifice1.html

Post 14

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 3:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Um, to finish the hijacking, I was quoting Biloxi Blues.

Back to Tibor's article and the debate on Incan atrocities.

Post 15

Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 9:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
MEM

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1379822.htm


Post 16

Friday, October 14, 2005 - 1:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hijack alert

Just a general dig at the anti-life indigenous South Americans, validation is wanting, but circumstantial evidence is note-worthy (from the book: The Pessimist's Guide to History):

=================
1520: Human Sacrifice Among the Aztecs: According to chronicles, when Aztec King Ahuitzotl dedicated a new temple in the capital of Tenochtitlan, he blessed the event by offering the sacrifice of an incredible 80,000 people to the gods.
=================

Ed



Post 17

Friday, October 14, 2005 - 2:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
1520: Human Sacrifice Among the Aztecs: According to chronicles, when Aztec King Ahuitzotl dedicated a new temple in the capital of Tenochtitlan, he blessed the event by offering the sacrifice of an incredible 80,000 people to the gods.
 
Now there's a man that doesn't hold back when he throws a party.




Post 18

Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 12:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
> [questioning the evidence for human sacrifices] Given that perhaps most of what we know about mesoamericans in general came from the conquistadores, we have only archaeological remains... [Michael M]

What about the missionaries who the King of Spain and the Church sent over with the conquistadores? What about the indigenous language translators? What about the descendants of the Incas...and of the other tribes they conquered? Don't you think they made their own reports. History is based on a range of -corroborating- evidence. There was no totalitarianism in place on an early frontier to make sure all the sources said the same thing.

Post 19

Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 9:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tibor Machan wrote: "Some information comes from a source that would not likely demean the Incas: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/peru/worlds/sacrifice1.html "

Actually, nothing there says anything about "hundreds" of sacrifices, but rather, of only one: the chief, or the child of a chief; sometimes a chosen "perfect" child from among the people.  Furthermore, it so happens that some of our people from Washtenaw Community College program in Radiography have shot Incan mummies and their photos and narratives -- posted here in the halls in the Occupational Education building -- pretty much support what PBS said: one sacrifce; one important burial. 
Philip Coates asked:  "What about the missionaries who the King of Spain and the Church sent over ... There was no totalitarianism in place on an early frontier to make sure all the sources said the same thing."
 I recommend that if you are interested in Southwest History, that you start with Bolton and Bannon on your way to Marcos de Niza.  I took a class in this when we lived in Albuqueque and I worked for UNM.  First of all, the technical name is the "Spanish Borderland Frontier."  Most Americans -- especially in the East -- read about the westward march from the Atlantic across the Alleghenies to Ohio and then on with Louis and Clarke and yadda yadda and was it not unfair about the war with Mexcio and yadda yadda...  Meanwhile, THREE HUNDRED YEARS of frontier history were played out.  You can read about Spanish women using medieval weapons against maurading natives in hand to hand combat. 
 
Anyway, Marcos de Niza is the source of the story of the Seven Cities of Cibola.  Exactly what he meant by what he said is not clear:  de NIZA means "of Nice."  He was Provencal.  The point is that just what these priests reported -- and to whom they reported it -- is still not completely sorted out.
 
If you want to find some priestly reports, you are welcome to go looking.  All of the archives are in Spain and they are open to researchers. If you think the TRUTH was welcomed much of anywhere, you have rude surprise in store.
 
The bottom line is that the facts seem to be pretty much as we know them: the Aztecs were into big, bloody ceremonies; the Incas were into cocaine.


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.