Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mexica (Aztec) gods in the World of Darkness

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Konradleijon View Post

    What calling a oppressed cultures gods fomori is kind of tone death. Like even more so then usual 90ties White Wolf

    Yeah, but the Aztecs were a bloody handed people. Even their own Native American neighbors didn’t like them much, which is why the other nations allied with the Spanish when they first arrived, at least for a while.

    Everyone has their own soapbox. I think yours is the oppression of indigenous/non-white peoples. Not that that’s a bad thing, I agree with you overall. I just think you feel more strongly about it than I do.


    “No one holds command over me. No man, no god, no Prince. Call your damn Hunt. We shall see who I drag screaming down to hell with me.” The last Ahrimane says this when Mithras calls a Blood Hunt against her.

    Comment


    • #32
      The local tribes did not hate the Nahuatl as much as some people think. It was like two rival principalities , and not Jewish resistance to Nazis, and the Nanhual where not anymore bloodthirsty then any other empire just because they dressed there State Enforced violence in a religious ritual.

      Comment


      • #33
        Until the Spanish arrived, the Aztecs actually were the oppressors.


        “No one holds command over me. No man, no god, no Prince. Call your damn Hunt. We shall see who I drag screaming down to hell with me.” The last Ahrimane says this when Mithras calls a Blood Hunt against her.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Konradleijon View Post
          The local tribes did not hate the Nahuatl as much as some people think. It was like two rival principalities , and not Jewish resistance to Nazis, and the Nanhual where not anymore bloodthirsty then any other empire just because they dressed there State Enforced violence in a religious ritual.
          Interesting. Are you sure about that? I learned pretty much the opposite, not that the Spanish were liberators or anything, but that the Aztecs were just as bad as they were. And I wasn’t in school that long ago.

          Although granted, Moctezuma’s response to Cortes’s arrival was not at all the violent outburst you might expect from the leader of a fanatical theocracy based on human sacrifice.

          I have to get to work rn, but this in an interesting discussion. I’ll reply later if you want to continue this.
          Last edited by Penelope; 10-16-2020, 09:09 AM.


          “No one holds command over me. No man, no god, no Prince. Call your damn Hunt. We shall see who I drag screaming down to hell with me.” The last Ahrimane says this when Mithras calls a Blood Hunt against her.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Penelope View Post

            Interesting. Are you sure about that? I learned pretty much the opposite, not that the Spanish were liberators or anything, but that the Aztecs were just as bad as they were. And I wasn’t in school that long ago.

            Although granted, Moctezuma’s response to Cortes’s arrival was not at all the violent outburst you might expect from the leader of a fanatical theocracy based on human sacrifice.

            I have to get to work rn, but this in an interesting discussion. I’ll reply later if you want to continue this.
            Will I don’t think they ever stopped neighboring tribes from worshipping there own gods. Or depopulated islands worth of people with overwork and sickness. So still seems better.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Konradleijon View Post

              Will I don’t think they ever stopped neighboring tribes from worshipping there own gods. Or depopulated islands worth of people with overwork and sickness. So still seems better.
              Good point. Though I’m not sure if they forced neighboring tribes to worship the Teotl pantheon or not. They definitely took human sacrifices for those gods from the ranks of their subject peoples.


              “No one holds command over me. No man, no god, no Prince. Call your damn Hunt. We shall see who I drag screaming down to hell with me.” The last Ahrimane says this when Mithras calls a Blood Hunt against her.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Konradleijon View Post
                What calling a oppressed cultures gods fomori is kind of tone death. Like even more so then usual 90ties White Wolf
                There are many things wrong with your statement.

                First, it is obviously the case that the World of Darkness setting is not the real world and any comments are not about real world societies. It is about how one can use elements from the real world in a fictional setting that nevertheless happens in a world like our own except for supernatural horror elements. This has always been an element in the game regardless of what cultures are used. This is not an issue with "90s White Wolf". It is intrinsic to the setting regardless of the creators involved. If that bothers you, why are you even playing this game as opposed to some other RPG that is wholly fictional, or completely historical? So your attempt to interpret my comment solely on the basis of one culture shows bias and prejudice on your part.

                Second, when talking about euhemerism or euhemerist-like elements in a setting, one is not talking about any divine beings themselves. But the potential for other non-divine beings (especially supernatural ones) in the setting to be in whole or in part of the inspiration behind the stories and myths, and thus can be something gameable in someone's chronicle. And an ST can decide if they want to use any such creature of the game in that role - whether it be mages, vampires, wraiths, mummies, or others - including fomori. Or even if they want multiple creatures to be behind the legends, and that includes other beings in the game from spirits to actual gods somewhere in the Astral. There is long standing ambiguity in the game on the extent that these creatures are the mythological beings in question. Something I am sure you are aware of since you do participate on this board and likely have read prior posts about this issue. Nevertheless, you choose to make a comment that ignored all of this in order to insinuate something.

                Third, your use of "oppressed culture" is an indirect attempt to smear me. I don't believe there is anyone who worships the Aztec gods in their original format anymore, although there are some people in Mexico who retain some folklore and a syncretized version of Christianity. Such peoples do struggle in many ways, but any possible oppressors are also from other Mexicans who are also descendants of the same Mesoamerican cultures. So how exactly this is a cultural issue based on the original Aztec religion is unclear to me. How my comment about a role playing game is involved in that is likewise obscure.

                Fourth, while I don't know anything about you, I will say I find it unlikely you are from that society itself. If so, you do not speak for them. If you actually are, you still only have an opinion and am not authorized to speak on anyone else's behalf. Likewise, you don't know anything about me or my possible connections to that society. So any comments you make that impugn my motives or biases are simply ignorant. If you must try to virtue signal while on these boards, please do not involve me in any of that.

                Fifth, this is the second time you have commented on my single post. The first one really had nothing to do with my post except for a comment that Cortes was aided by native Mesoamericans to overthrow the Aztecs. Your comment then really wasn't about my post except as a historical aside based on a reddit post. You could have simply posted it without reference to me. However, you disagreed with my statement that the conquistadors were assisted by Mesoamericans who "hated" the Triple Alliance. While you based your "fun fact" from a reddit post, it really didn't dispute my statement.

                I choose simply to ignore it at the time rather than correct you with actual comments from actual scholars (like the historian Hugh Thomas who wrote multiple books on this era of Spain including a book on the actual conquest (Conquest) itself where he stated "But the people of Tlaxcala and Huexotzinco, as well as the Totonacs, hated the Mexica." Or the historian Camilla Townsend who specializes in Native Americans in Latin America who recently wrote in the book Fifth Sun (a history comprised from actual Aztec records and attempted from their point of view as opposed to the Spanish records) that "The Tlaxcalans, they [meaning the Totonacs] explained, truly hated the Mexica, for although they had remained independent, they had done this by participating in the dreaded Flower Wars against them for years."). They're only extremely reputed historians and not anonymous reddit posters, but I still hold by them. My original statement then is well supported.

                I didn't post any correction at the time. I thought it was a minor point and didn't want to detract from the information you helpfully provided to others on this board. Unlike you, I choose not to interpret another person's comments hostilely or negatively. And I assure you, that if you do want to get into a historical debate on the Aztec peoples and/ or the conquest of Mexico by Cortes, I have many more resources on this topic at my immediate disposal. But I think these kind of boards, especially ones not actually dedicated to history, are a poor forum for such debates. I'm sure you feel comfortable with your own interpretation of history, but you should understand other people also have their own support for their views, and you should not like some kind of authority figure on the subject when you are not.

                Now for some reason you have gone back to the same post (and once again quoting the entire post instead of just the relevant portion) to take a minor portion and try to emphasize it. I sometimes reply multiple times to the same post myself, but that's to address separate topics and engage with them while avoiding a huge block of text. Not to keep trying to nitpick them or make snide remarks. Even if I disagree with someone's opinion, I don't try to impugn their motives or use indirect smears. I usually make an effort to emphasize disagreement is due to different tastes and explain why my tastes are the way they are.

                You need to be more careful in statements that characterize the thoughts and statements of others. And you should be aware that continuing to go back to someone's post and make snide remarks can constitute harassment.

                By the way, the phrase is "tone deaf" not tone death.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Black Fox View Post

                  There are many things wrong with your statement.

                  First, it is obviously the case that the World of Darkness setting is not the real world and any comments are not about real world societies. It is about how one can use elements from the real world in a fictional setting that nevertheless happens in a world like our own except for supernatural horror elements. This has always been an element in the game regardless of what cultures are used. This is not an issue with "90s White Wolf". It is intrinsic to the setting regardless of the creators involved. If that bothers you, why are you even playing this game as opposed to some other RPG that is wholly fictional, or completely historical? So your attempt to interpret my comment solely on the basis of one culture shows bias and prejudice on your part.

                  Second, when talking about euhemerism or euhemerist-like elements in a setting, one is not talking about any divine beings themselves. But the potential for other non-divine beings (especially supernatural ones) in the setting to be in whole or in part of the inspiration behind the stories and myths, and thus can be something gameable in someone's chronicle. And an ST can decide if they want to use any such creature of the game in that role - whether it be mages, vampires, wraiths, mummies, or others - including fomori. Or even if they want multiple creatures to be behind the legends, and that includes other beings in the game from spirits to actual gods somewhere in the Astral. There is long standing ambiguity in the game on the extent that these creatures are the mythological beings in question. Something I am sure you are aware of since you do participate on this board and likely have read prior posts about this issue. Nevertheless, you choose to make a comment that ignored all of this in order to insinuate something.

                  Third, your use of "oppressed culture" is an indirect attempt to smear me. I don't believe there is anyone who worships the Aztec gods in their original format anymore, although there are some people in Mexico who retain some folklore and a syncretized version of Christianity. Such peoples do struggle in many ways, but any possible oppressors are also from other Mexicans who are also descendants of the same Mesoamerican cultures. So how exactly this is a cultural issue based on the original Aztec religion is unclear to me. How my comment about a role playing game is involved in that is likewise obscure.

                  Fourth, while I don't know anything about you, I will say I find it unlikely you are from that society itself. If so, you do not speak for them. If you actually are, you still only have an opinion and am not authorized to speak on anyone else's behalf. Likewise, you don't know anything about me or my possible connections to that society. So any comments you make that impugn my motives or biases are simply ignorant. If you must try to virtue signal while on these boards, please do not involve me in any of that.

                  Fifth, this is the second time you have commented on my single post. The first one really had nothing to do with my post except for a comment that Cortes was aided by native Mesoamericans to overthrow the Aztecs. Your comment then really wasn't about my post except as a historical aside based on a reddit post. You could have simply posted it without reference to me. However, you disagreed with my statement that the conquistadors were assisted by Mesoamericans who "hated" the Triple Alliance. While you based your "fun fact" from a reddit post, it really didn't dispute my statement.

                  I choose simply to ignore it at the time rather than correct you with actual comments from actual scholars (like the historian Hugh Thomas who wrote multiple books on this era of Spain including a book on the actual conquest (Conquest) itself where he stated "But the people of Tlaxcala and Huexotzinco, as well as the Totonacs, hated the Mexica." Or the historian Camilla Townsend who specializes in Native Americans in Latin America who recently wrote in the book Fifth Sun (a history comprised from actual Aztec records and attempted from their point of view as opposed to the Spanish records) that "The Tlaxcalans, they [meaning the Totonacs] explained, truly hated the Mexica, for although they had remained independent, they had done this by participating in the dreaded Flower Wars against them for years.&quot. They're only extremely reputed historians and not anonymous reddit posters, but I still hold by them. My original statement then is well supported.

                  I didn't post any correction at the time. I thought it was a minor point and didn't want to detract from the information you helpfully provided to others on this board. Unlike you, I choose not to interpret another person's comments hostilely or negatively. And I assure you, that if you do want to get into a historical debate on the Aztec peoples and/ or the conquest of Mexico by Cortes, I have many more resources on this topic at my immediate disposal. But I think these kind of boards, especially ones not actually dedicated to history, are a poor forum for such debates. I'm sure you feel comfortable with your own interpretation of history, but you should understand other people also have their own support for their views, and you should not like some kind of authority figure on the subject when you are not.

                  Now for some reason you have gone back to the same post (and once again quoting the entire post instead of just the relevant portion) to take a minor portion and try to emphasize it. I sometimes reply multiple times to the same post myself, but that's to address separate topics and engage with them while avoiding a huge block of text. Not to keep trying to nitpick them or make snide remarks. Even if I disagree with someone's opinion, I don't try to impugn their motives or use indirect smears. I usually make an effort to emphasize disagreement is due to different tastes and explain why my tastes are the way they are.

                  You need to be more careful in statements that characterize the thoughts and statements of others. And you should be aware that continuing to go back to someone's post and make snide remarks can constitute harassment.

                  By the way, the phrase is "tone deaf" not tone death.
                  Descend from the same mesoamerican culture, most of the upper class in Mexico is white and tell recently prided themselves on there proud Spainish heritage.

                  And you don’t know why uses elements from white cultures is different from POCs? Do you know about systematic discrimination, people know what Christianity is, it’s one of if not the most widely practiced religion in the world and at least in the west isn’t oppressed, unlike indigenous religions which have been discriminated for centuries, that’s why saying Caine was a vampire and also fucked Lilith to get superpowers is okay it’s punching up. But saying that Nathual Telto where secretly demonic Maloverent vampires isn’t, indigenous and nathual spirtulty is very misunderstand even to this day.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Black Fox View Post

                    There are many things wrong with your statement.

                    First, it is obviously the case that the World of Darkness setting is not the real world and any comments are not about real world societies. It is about how one can use elements from the real world in a fictional setting that nevertheless happens in a world like our own except for supernatural horror elements. This has always been an element in the game regardless of what cultures are used. This is not an issue with "90s White Wolf". It is intrinsic to the setting regardless of the creators involved. If that bothers you, why are you even playing this game as opposed to some other RPG that is wholly fictional, or completely historical? So your attempt to interpret my comment solely on the basis of one culture shows bias and prejudice on your part.

                    Second, when talking about euhemerism or euhemerist-like elements in a setting, one is not talking about any divine beings themselves. But the potential for other non-divine beings (especially supernatural ones) in the setting to be in whole or in part of the inspiration behind the stories and myths, and thus can be something gameable in someone's chronicle. And an ST can decide if they want to use any such creature of the game in that role - whether it be mages, vampires, wraiths, mummies, or others - including fomori. Or even if they want multiple creatures to be behind the legends, and that includes other beings in the game from spirits to actual gods somewhere in the Astral. There is long standing ambiguity in the game on the extent that these creatures are the mythological beings in question. Something I am sure you are aware of since you do participate on this board and likely have read prior posts about this issue. Nevertheless, you choose to make a comment that ignored all of this in order to insinuate something.
                    I feel that these two points are extremely disingenuous. While WW might not have intended harm with any of the material, lots of harm was done, and more than one writer from that era has copped to this. The fictional nature of the setting has no bearing on this discussion, given how much it leans on the details of many real life cultures and events.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      I’m inclined to agree with Black Fox that the other Mesoamerican nations disliked and feared the Aztecs. That agrees with what I learned in high school and college as well as stuff I’ve heard on my own. Also, one of the historians he cites drew her research from the Aztec people’s own indigenous records at the time, which tends to make her conclusions more credible.


                      “No one holds command over me. No man, no god, no Prince. Call your damn Hunt. We shall see who I drag screaming down to hell with me.” The last Ahrimane says this when Mithras calls a Blood Hunt against her.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Saur Ops Specialist View Post

                        I feel that these two points are extremely disingenuous. While WW might not have intended harm with any of the material, lots of harm was done, and more than one writer from that era has copped to this. The fictional nature of the setting has no bearing on this discussion, given how much it leans on the details of many real life cultures and events.
                        Thank You The “just fiction excuse” and “not meant to harm,“I are terrible accuses, people can unintentionally be harmful especially when indigenous people are concerned which have dealt with harmful misconceptions for centuries, WW tendency to have Mexico as a place of great evil is also odd in today’s climate of Xenophobia.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          ...Canada and America and literally the entire World of Darkness was a place of great evil because its literally the World of Darkness and the World is literally in the days leading up to an apocalypse...


                          Originally posted by Penelope View Post
                          I’m inclined to agree with Black Fox that the other Mesoamerican nations disliked and feared the Aztecs. That agrees with what I learned in high school and college as well as stuff I’ve heard on my own. Also, one of the historians he cites drew her research from the Aztec people’s own indigenous records at the time, which tends to make her conclusions more credible.
                          From my understanding the people that were genocided after losing to Tenochtitlan and mass sacrificed were not a fan of being mass sacrificed.


                          It is a time for great deeds!

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Eldagusto View Post
                            ...Canada and America and literally the entire World of Darkness was a place of great evil because its literally the World of Darkness and the World is literally in the days leading up to an apocalypse...



                            From my understanding the people that were genocided after losing to Tenochtitlan and mass sacrificed were not a fan of being mass sacrificed.
                            My thoughts exactly 😂😂😂


                            “No one holds command over me. No man, no god, no Prince. Call your damn Hunt. We shall see who I drag screaming down to hell with me.” The last Ahrimane says this when Mithras calls a Blood Hunt against her.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Penelope View Post

                              My thoughts exactly 😂😂😂
                              Like blood sacrifice was a universal Mesoamerican tradition. And they'll probably were not anymore then 200 to 100 sacrfoces per year. Know matter what sensational online figures say.

                              The other Kingdoms mostly didn't like the Nahtual for common empire reasons And not sacrifice.



                              ”There are two claims here:

                              Rate of sacrifice was 40/day, totaling up to 1.2M over an unspecified time frame.

                              Use of psychotropics drugs contributed to the rate at which sacrifices occurred.

                              To take #2 first, I'm going to start by pointing out the use of a term like "brutal" necessarily implies an etic judgement. Human sacrifice may be, intrinsically, a violent act. The word "brutal," however, has connotations of excessive even wanton, violence. Yet, the fact that we see human sacrifice practiced in various forms and with varying importance throughout Mesoamerica for thousands of years implies that the emic perspective was not that it was brutal, or at the very least that it was a necessary brutality. Given that the Aztecs saw death as a sacrifice as no different as death on the battlefield or in birth, and afforded high honors to all who perished in such ways, the notion that this was seen as an excessively violent way to die should be dismissed.

                              There's also the fact that, just as with human sacrifice, the use of psychotropics has an equally long history in Mesoamerica. Yet, it is only in the Late Postclassic in Central Mexico that we see an intensification of sacrifice as a religio-political act. If psychotropics are to be posited as a cause for the intensification of sacrifice, than Harris would need to show an equal intensification of psychotropic use. Moreover, he would need to show that such use superseded any other changes in the society and culture of Mesoamerica. Otherwise, I have have a Hitchens quote about assertions without evidence with which I am sure Harris is familiar.

                              Now to address #1. This is really where I would be interested in Harris' sources, because I'm fairly certain he is drawing upon Cook (1946), where Cook posited a range of 10-20K sacrifices per year, and wrote that "allowing for changes over a century, 10,000 to 20,000 persons were sacrificed per year with an over-all mean of 15,000."

                              If we take the 40/day rate and multiply by 365, then we get 14,600, which seems close enough to Cook's estimate. Dividing 1.2 million by 14.K we achieve that total in about 81 years, which isn't too far off from to the century of the Imperial Aztecs. Yet we must keep in mind that even Cook noted that direct estimates for sacrifices in particular areas are few and far between, and subject to a great deal of bias, and therefore any extrapolation for an entire region "involves a large element of assumption."

                              One thing to keep in mind is that our estimates of sacrifices are... dubious, to say the least. Our primary sources tend to be Spanish soldiers who had no knowledge of, and significant bias towards, the practice. The other sources we have tend to be second-hand, or worse, assertions of numbers which can feel pulled out of nowhere. The famous assertion of 80,400 sacrificed during the re-dedication of the Temple of Huitzilopochtli, for instance, comes from Duran, who makes no attempt to question this number, because that wasn't his goal. He was recording Mexica history as it was told to him and we therefore have no more reason to believe that grandiose number than we have to believe his assertion that an Aztec army 400K strong once marched to war. These numbers are propaganda and legend.

                              So to posit a rate of 40 sacrifices per day, we need to accept a whole suite of dubiously sourced assertions. Even if we accept the first hand conquistador accounts measuring the tzompantli (skull rack, where the heads of those sacrificed were placed), which Cook does, we have to contend later research contradicts those numbers. Ortiz de Montellano (1983), for instance, finds the Conquistador accounts to be physically improbable, and scales down the number from 156K (cf. Tapia) to 60K. This would give a rate (if we use the 81 years calculated earlier) of about 2 sacrifices per day in Tenochtitlan.

                              Even then, we would have to, as Cook needed to do, extrapolate that number out to the rest of lands under Aztec control and Central Mexico, in general. Unfortunately, we have no reason to believe that the rate of sacrifice in Tenochtitlan and other core Aztec cities, was replicated elsewhere. Brumfiel (1996) challenges the idea of an overarching state religion, but noting that archaeological evidence points towards a difference between the core Aztec cities (centered around war and sacrifice) and the hinterlands (centered around agriculture with less emphasis on sacrifice). In other words, even if we could determine a rate of sacrifice in the core Aztec cities (which we can't), we cannot assume that rate was replicated throughout Central Mexico.

                              The truth of the matter is that we don't know how many people were sacrificed by the Aztecs. Here's a few problems in trying to make the estimate:

                              Poor/Unreliable sources of numbers

                              Sacrifice itself was used as intimidation, so there is a risk of number inflation

                              Actual demographic number of Mesoamerica vary

                              Numbers of sacrifices taken don't seem to match up with claimed number of sacrifices (cf. Hassig (1995) regarding numbers of captive taken in campaigns)

                              Sacrifice of war captives may have been augmented by other means or other forms of sacrifice (e.g., women or children)

                              Again, what this comes down to is that we do not have any reliable estimates of how many people were actually sacrificed by the Aztecs. Anyone who says otherwise is either pushing an ideology and/or ignorant of the topic. Knowing what I know about Harris, I would guess both. There is an etic tendency to look on Aztec sacrifice as an irrational act driven by religion. There are undeniable religious elements to the practice, of course, but to solely ascribe the intensification of the practice under the Aztecs to religion is to be willfully ignorant of the politics of the Late Postclassic. Our primary sources point to the idea of intensification was as much as political decision as it was a religious one. Conquering under a banner of a god may be religious in nature, but the profits reaped are wholly temporal (cf. the Codex Mendoza for tribute earned).

                              For another angle, we need to return to the idea of sacrifice as "brutal," and keep in mind that, by any and all accounts, the supermajority of those sacrificed were captured during war. Such individuals, under other circumstances, would have been war "casualties" rather than war "captives." There is a notion that Mesoamericans only fought to take prisoners. This is false and often conflates more ritualized xochiyaoyotl conflicts with more regular campaigns (though a xochiyaoyotl could also increase in severity). Since taking a prisoner was highly valued regardless, we may assume that any prisoner taken may have been killed on the battlefield in different cultural circumstances. In fact, if we take this to the extreme, the emphasis on taken prisoners would mean that more people were spared on the battlefield, which would make Aztec warfare more humane than contemporary European warfare.

                              That latter part is speculation, but the summary here is that we have no reason to think psychotropic use contributed to increased "brutality;" we have no reason to accept the 40/day rate as real; and the notion of Aztec sacrifice as some irrational religious act ignorantly ignores all other factors.”

                              From a Reddit post by an expert on mesoamerican studies https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...omment/d4yhqm2
                              Last edited by Konradleijon; 10-18-2020, 10:49 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Konradleijon View Post

                                Like blood sacrifice was a universal Mesoamerican tradition. And they'll probably were not anymore then 200 to 100 sacrfoces per year. Know matter what sensational online figures say.

                                The other Kingdoms mostly didn't like the Nahtual for common empire reasons. And not sacrifice.
                                Sorry to be mean, but if you can’t even spell Nahuatl, it makes me question the authority of your assertions about the Nahuatl people.


                                “No one holds command over me. No man, no god, no Prince. Call your damn Hunt. We shall see who I drag screaming down to hell with me.” The last Ahrimane says this when Mithras calls a Blood Hunt against her.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X