It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Human sacrifice was an integral part of the Aztec religion—as it was for many other societies in the New World, including the Maya. One of the central beliefs of the Aztec world was that Huitzilopochtli, the god of the sun, needed constant nourishment in the form of human blood—seen as the sacred life force—in order to keep the sun moving from east to west across the sky
During the past one hundred years any theory of history or historical evidence that falls outside a pattern established by the American Historical Association and the major foundations "with their grantmaking power has
been attacked or rejected - not on the basis of any evidence presented, but on the basis of the acceptability of
the argument to the so-called Eastern Liberal Establishment and its official historical line.
The Official Establishment History
There is an Establishment history, an official history, which dominates history textbooks, trade publishing,
the media and library shelves. The official line always assumes that events such as "wars, revolutions, scandals,
assassinations, are more or less random unconnected events.
Woe betide any book or author that falls outside the official guidelines. Foundation support is not there. Publishers get cold feet. Distribution is hit and miss, or non-existent.
Just to ensure the official line dominates, in 1946 the Rockefeller Foundation allotted $139, 000 for an
official history of World War Two. This to avoid a repeat of debunking history books "which embarrassed the
Establishment after World War One. The reader "will be interested to know that The Order we are about to
investigate had great foresight, back in the 1880s, to create both the American Historical Association and the
American Economic Association (most economists "were then more historians than analysts) under their terms,
"with their people and their objectives. Andrew Dickson White "was a member of The Order and the first
President of the American Historical Association.
www.newsweek.com...
“As I read through the document, I saw a consistently negative view of American history that highlights oppressors and exploiters,” Krieger said on a conference call sponsored by two conservative groups fighting the new APUSH framework. He read quotes from the framework to illustrate his point: “Instead of striving to build a city on a hill, according to the Framework our nation’s Founders are portrayed as bigots who ‘developed a belief in white superiority’—that’s a quote—that was in turn derived from ‘a strong belief in British racial and cultural superiority’ and that of course led to ‘the creation of a rigid racial hierarchy.”
originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: LDragonFire
So you would admit that the colonists needed forts to keep attacking Indians at bay... certainly that is consistent with pre-revisionist history.
originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: TinfoilTP
Celts
Romans
Gauls
Carthaginians
Minoans
Aztecs
Are other civilizations that also conducted human sacrifice.... So what? Its a ugly part of humanities past. Whats your point?
originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: diggindirt
I think you are confused about the definition of conquest. Does it matter what the size of the conquest? Perhaps you are buying into some revisionist history.
www.nationalreview.com...
originally posted by: LDragonFire
originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: LDragonFire
So you would admit that the colonists needed forts to keep attacking Indians at bay... certainly that is consistent with pre-revisionist history.
I admit the US army built forts along the roads we built.
Why is it relevant that the Native Americans fought for there lands and villages?
Do you admit that US Soldiers conducted massacres? Do you admit corrupt government agencies led to mismanagement and starvation, that resulted in the Sioux War and the Nez Perce War?
"Land...cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable...." (Item #10 in the UN agenda at the 1976 Habitat I. American delegates supported this policy)
www.epa.gov...
This page discusses the federal regulations that may apply to tribal government operations. The purpose of this section is to highlight and briefly describe the applicable federal requirements and to provide citations. This page also discusses EPA's role in directly implementing and enforcing federal environmental laws in Indian country and the process through which tribal governments can assume responsibility for implementing certain federal environmental programs.
Umm... You might wanna bone up on American Indian history, where they used to kill each other in pretty large numbers. Tribe vs. tribe, young warrior vs one that wants to prove himself. They were pretty apt with knives, tomahawk and bow.
Again, you're missing it, they had weapons for hunting, but they also had weapons for killing. Weapons used in warfare are not always the same as the ones used in hunting, in principal they are similar but they aren't the same, sorry.
originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: diggindirt
What views are you referring to? I was suggesting it doesn't have to be all out war for it to be a point of conquest. You seem to be suggesting that Indians were never involved in any wars of conquest until the Europeans arrived. That may or may not be so, but how many people have to be involved for it to be a war of conquest? This is relative nonsense you are engaging in.
Why promoting the concept that Indians were in tune with nature and completely peaceful and Europeans evil warmongers and slavers? This concept fits right into the Progressive stereotype and mindset.
originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: diggindirt
I think you are confused about the definition of conquest. Does it matter what the size of the conquest? Perhaps you are buying into some revisionist history.
www.nationalreview.com...
originally posted by: Hefficide
I find the fact that the word "savages" keeps popping up to be exceptionally troubling and an indication that prejudice is still an acceptable practice - provided the target group not have a loud enough voice to silence it.
To the Romans Europeans were savages. To the Persians and Chinese all westerners were savages, and were thought of exactly in the same way in reverse.
"Savage" is a term used by people who do not know or understand.
Aboriginal Americans, from both North and South America were not the simple Tarzanesque characters that John Wayne films showed. At a time when London was a small, muddy village - there were vast empires in South America to rival anything else in the world.
One could assert that Philip of Spain was a horrible savage when he cut down every single tree in his country to complete his infamous Spanish Armada. That seems like a legitimate act of barbarism to me. Nevermind that Rome provided murder for entertainment, or that the Church, throughout history, loved their little murder sprees.... Or that Europe stayed at war as much as any American tribes might have.
People are people and all races, ethnicities, creeds, and religions have their skeletons in their respective closets and those periods of time that they would like to forget. The Natives of this nation included.
originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Smallpox and other sickness is the reason for the rapid decline in population, zero immunity.
As for the premise of the noble advanced nature of the native americans of this thread,
Human sacrifice was an integral part of the Aztec religion—as it was for many other societies in the New World, including the Maya. One of the central beliefs of the Aztec world was that Huitzilopochtli, the god of the sun, needed constant nourishment in the form of human blood—seen as the sacred life force—in order to keep the sun moving from east to west across the sky
Source
there is some discrepancy as to whether they killed 20,000 at a time or 20 but it is still human sacrifice, one of the lowest forms of societal practice associated with the uncivilized world. Quite the opposite of comparing them to a society that produced the ten commandments which include thou shalt not kill.
The list in the opening post is hooey make believe phooey.
Please show me where I claimed that native people in the Americas never committed violence against each other. I've repeatedly said there was violence. But there is a vast difference between incidents of personalized violence, ritual violence and wars of conquest.
a reply to: diggindirt
Perhaps it is you who need to bone up on American Indian history and culture. Like a lot of us, you were probably raised on "cowboys and Indians" flicks and the idea that the native inhabitants of North and South America were just murdering savages. That is the picture painted by European invaders for a few centuries.
Please show me where I claimed that native people in the Americas never committed violence against each other. I've repeatedly said there was violence. But there is a vast difference between incidents of personalized violence, ritual violence and wars of conquest.
Why would you think that when I asked you for one link to one scientific paper that upholds your views? I'm still waiting for the link that shows definitive evidence of your assertions.
originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: diggindirt
So the American Indians never employed the help of the French in a war of conquest against American settlers?
originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: diggindirt
What views are you referring to? I was suggesting it doesn't have to be all out war for it to be a point of conquest. You seem to be suggesting that Indians were never involved in any wars of conquest until the Europeans arrived. That may or may not be so, but how many people have to be involved for it to be a war of conquest? This is relative nonsense you are engaging in.
Why promoting the concept that Indians were in tune with nature and completely peaceful and Europeans evil warmongers and slavers? This concept fits right into the Progressive stereotype and mindset.