• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Landy828

Member
Oct 26, 2017
13,411
Clemson, SC
I think one should pause to note the difference between my post, where I wrote in the past tense to acknowledge the practice as a religious one (from the position of history and anthropology), and their post, which cited child sacrifice as a valid way to manage populations in contemporary times, regardless of cultural practices and values.

Granted, when I did post it, I was still afraid....

Yeah, I understand the second half of the post was iffy, and I cringed a bit.

Just wanted to point out that "population control" is in fact in the article. Just in case that was missed.

I can't imagine sacrificing my child for something. I'd rather they take me 100x before my child.
 

Heshinsi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,093
So they would be very valuable as slaves, but not a valuable sacrifice? And you say they would not slaughter livestock, but then they would for rituals.

So I don't see how anything you said indicates these may not have been a ritual sacrifice of enemy captives.
Because their gods want them doing the sacrifice.
 

Illithid Dude

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,363
Of course children chosen to be ritually sacrificed live there final year in abject luxury and believe they are going to heaven immediately after. To all this calling this disgusting, let us remember how this was viewed in Mayan culture, not through the prism of modern culture.
 
Oct 26, 2017
6,574
Because their gods want them doing the sacrifice.
Yep. Captives weren't worth as much. So to sacrifice them would've been an insult to the deities. And yes, human and animal lifes had different values for sacrifices. Kids and young animals had a higher "sacrificial value". For this massive massacre to happen something must've gone horribly wrong. What that is, is anyone's guess at this time. A lost war, a brutal drought or disastrous rains... Earthquakes, but it drove them to kill all those kids and lamas. Aside from appeasing their gods they also made sure they had less mouths to feed.
 

Rowlf

User requested ban
Banned
Oct 24, 2017
645
Wtf so the other poster gets banned but this bullshit is fine? Explain this to me mods.
Contrary to popular belief, the staff is not omniscient and sometimes it takes us a few minutes to become aware of a post. There were a grand total of 6 minutes between when this post was reported and when it was acted upon.

There's your explanation. PM me with other questions.
 

SkyOdin

Member
Apr 21, 2018
2,680
I know this person was banned...but the article actually says...

"Human sacrifice has been practiced in nearly all corners of the globe at various times, and scientists believe that the ritual may have played an important role in the development of complex societies through social stratification and control of populations by elite social classes."

Of course, the second half of their post gets a squint look.
I don't think that underlined bit means what you think it does. It is talking about elites asserting social dominance over people, not keeping population numbers at low levels. The myth of overpopulation is a modern one. For pre-industrial governments, more people was a good thing, since it meant larger armies and more labor to work with.
 
Oct 30, 2017
798
No it isn't. The planet can support many, many, many more humans than it does now.
This is the first time I see this point of view online. Usually, we see the contrary as the planet won't be abl to sustain more human beings as years come. I'm really curious to read article that support this point. Can you share any?
 

SkyOdin

Member
Apr 21, 2018
2,680
This is the first time I see this point of view online. Usually, we see the contrary as the planet won't be abl to sustain more human beings as years come. I'm really curious to read article that support this point. Can you share any?
I am not sure of any specific articles, but I can summarize some of the basic points.

First of all, the world is currently producing more than enough food to comfortably support its current population. The problem with hunger around the would is thus a matter of distribution, not production. Western countries currently consume and waste more food than they strictly need, while poor countries lack the means to import food. So westerners grow overweight, while people in poor countries starve.

In general, over population is a convenient myth for people of rich western countries to use to explain why tons of non-white people are suffering from poverty. It is a way of blaming non-white people for their own poverty, while conveniently ignoring the role that European colonialism played in creating that poverty in the first place.

In practice though, large population spikes are the result of significant technological increases in food production and the quality of life. Recent population booms in particular are the result of modern medicine significantly reducing child mortality. However, these large population spikes always level off naturally, with no exceptions. Thus any argument that overpopulation is the result of cultural factors is a lie.

If you look at places like India or China that have extremely large populations and high population density, it is easy to think of them as overcrowded. However, these regions have always been home to significantly larger populations than Europe or North America. Ironically, it is China's ill-concieved scheme to limit its population growth, the now defunct One Child policy, that will have far more dire economic and social consequences for the country than its large population will.
 

Baji Boxer

Chicken Chaser
Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,380
This is the first time I see this point of view online. Usually, we see the contrary as the planet won't be abl to sustain more human beings as years come. I'm really curious to read article that support this point. Can you share any?

The limit is estimated to be around 9-10 billion (assuming most of us stay omnivores), but population fertility rates should self correct before we hit any kind of limit.

https://www.livescience.com/16493-people-planet-earth-support.html
 

Erik Twice

Member
Nov 2, 2017
685
In multiple cases the colonizers also brought their own method of savagery. The Spanish Inquisition being the best example.

One form of barbarians doesn't justify a more advanced form of barbarians.
The Spanish Inquisition is in nowhere comparable to the sacrifices made in pre-Columbine America, having a significantly different role in their respective societies, being structured differently and having different goals. Most notably, the Spanish Inquisition did not had a large presence in America, it had no jurisdiction over Indians and it was mostly a political tool, not a religious one.

According to modern historigraphy, the Spanish Inquisition sentenced less than 80 people to death in America in its three centuries of history and most of them were sentenced for political reasons. For example, foreign agents and pirates like John Drake, anti-monarchists, anticlerical members, Masons, those that forced Indians to work on Sunday and so on.

The Spanish Inquisition used torture to extract confessions, as it was usual in Europe at the time, both at religious and secular tribunals. However, it was used more sparingly than secular tribunals of the time. One must also keep in mind that the majority of administrations of the Spanish Inquisition did not handle witchcraft cases (it was a secular matter) and the official position was that witchcraft, quite simply, was not a real thing.

Most of the view of the Spanish Inquisition is shaped by anti-Spanish propaganda on the behalf of England and the Netherlands as well as anti-Catholic sentiment in the anglospehere during the late XIX century and beginning of the XX.

This is not at all similar with the Aztecs, who sacrificed over 20.000 people a year and had rituals that included ripping out people's hearts alive and then throwing their bodies so the audience could eat them nor with the equally gruesome, ultraviolent acts we are talking about in this thread.

In fact, it's one of the reasons why Hernán Cortés was so successful: Many Indian tribes, like the Txaltecans were not particularly happy with being sacrificed and saw the Cortés offer of mancommunity and a god that required no sacrifices as being better than their current position.
 

Deleted member 19003

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,809
Of course children chosen to be ritually sacrificed live there final year in abject luxury and believe they are going to heaven immediately after. To all this calling this disgusting, let us remember how this was viewed in Mayan culture, not through the prism of modern culture.
??? Killing children in sacrifice is disgusting. There's no moral relativism here, wtf.
 

Deleted member 19003

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,809
Of course to us it is disgusting, and rightly so, but is it as bad if you consider that this indigenous civilization thought they were securing these children a high place in the afterlife?
Yes? Just like I would think it's bad if some religious nuts today wanted to secure their children a higher place by torturing and killing them too. It's universally bad, no matter what time in history.
 
Oct 26, 2017
6,574
Yes? Just like I would think it's bad if some religious nuts today wanted to secure their children a higher place by torturing and killing them too. It's universally bad, no matter what time in history.
You need to realise that morals are always changing, and our understanding of the world is constantly expanding. Applying our modern moral standards to judge older civilizations is the same mindset that colonialists used to justify their atrocities and their genocides.
Now I am not accusing you of supporting such atrocities but you should be aware that projecting modern sensitivities to cultures with a completely different understanding of how the world works is self serving and doesn't help to understand the past.

That doesn't mean that things like that can't or shouldn't affect you. You wouldn't be human if you didn't. Just be careful passing judgement from our ivory tower of historical perspective.
 

zon

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,428
The Spanish Inquisition is in nowhere comparable to the sacrifices made in pre-Columbine America, having a significantly different role in their respective societies, being structured differently and having different goals. Most notably, the Spanish Inquisition did not had a large presence in America, it had no jurisdiction over Indians and it was mostly a political tool, not a religious one.

According to modern historigraphy, the Spanish Inquisition sentenced less than 80 people to death in America in its three centuries of history and most of them were sentenced for political reasons. For example, foreign agents and pirates like John Drake, anti-monarchists, anticlerical members, Masons, those that forced Indians to work on Sunday and so on.

The Spanish Inquisition used torture to extract confessions, as it was usual in Europe at the time, both at religious and secular tribunals. However, it was used more sparingly than secular tribunals of the time. One must also keep in mind that the majority of administrations of the Spanish Inquisition did not handle witchcraft cases (it was a secular matter) and the official position was that witchcraft, quite simply, was not a real thing.

Most of the view of the Spanish Inquisition is shaped by anti-Spanish propaganda on the behalf of England and the Netherlands as well as anti-Catholic sentiment in the anglospehere during the late XIX century and beginning of the XX.

This is not at all similar with the Aztecs, who sacrificed over 20.000 people a year and had rituals that included ripping out people's hearts alive and then throwing their bodies so the audience could eat them nor with the equally gruesome, ultraviolent acts we are talking about in this thread.

In fact, it's one of the reasons why Hernán Cortés was so successful: Many Indian tribes, like the Txaltecans were not particularly happy with being sacrificed and saw the Cortés offer of mancommunity and a god that required no sacrifices as being better than their current position.

Great post!
 

EMT0

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,104
Human sacrifices are easily some of the most horrific aspects of any culture. Whenever I got sidetracked into reading about religious customs of Mayans, Aztecs or ancient Germanic tribes this was the one thing that made me shudder. South American pre-contact civilizations take the cake when it comes to that given how ingrained it was into their societies and the numbers involved.

1) South America doesn't begin at the Rio Grande. The Maya and Aztec were not in South America(ffs)
2) Don't put Andean and Mesoamerican human sacrifice together. Andean human sacrifice was literal orders of magnitude lesser than what the Aztec got up to
 

sibarraz

Prophet of Regret - One Winged Slayer
Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
18,107
In essence, colonialism is the advancement of humans, where we were going anyway.

If you miss human sacrifice, well too bad.

I know that you are banned, by since you talk about it.

The only thing that europeans brought to america (or the rest of the world for the matter) was diseases, enslavement, rape and massive murder.

The aztecs and the inks had incredible city that didn't have anything to envy to european metropolis of the time, yet those guys came and looted and destroyed everything, for what? to bring what exactly?

Is kinda ironic, I came to this thread to talk about how at times I hate how people in latin america picture the native civilizations as perfect utopias were nothing bad happened, but in all honestly, your post reminded me that no matter how terrible could things be here, those crime were completely irrelevant next to the shit that europeans brought to the entire worlld
 

Deleted member 19003

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,809
You need to realise that morals are always changing, and our understanding of the world is constantly expanding. Applying our modern moral standards to judge older civilizations is the same mindset that colonialists used to justify their atrocities and their genocides.
Now I am not accusing you of supporting such atrocities but you should be aware that projecting modern sensitivities to cultures with a completely different understanding of how the world works is self serving and doesn't help to understand the past.

That doesn't mean that things like that can't or shouldn't affect you. You wouldn't be human if you didn't. Just be careful passing judgement from our ivory tower of historical perspective.

I understand viewing things through a historical lens. But I have no problem saying that a majority of people would have thought ritualized child sacrifice as highly barbaric even for the time period.
 

Luxorek

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,162
Poland
1) South America doesn't begin at the Rio Grande. The Maya and Aztec were not in South America(ffs)
2) Don't put Andean and Mesoamerican human sacrifice together. Andean human sacrifice was literal orders of magnitude lesser than what the Aztec got up to

1) The SA comment was meant to imply the Aztecs, which I somehow got mixed up with the Incas. My bad. Central America it is.
2) I know. Again, used SA instead of CA as I should. My bad.
 

Tlaloc

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
692
I understand viewing things through a historical lens. But I have no problem saying that a majority of people would have thought ritualized child sacrifice as highly barbaric even for the time period.
The people of the time were just as barbaric if not more so than indigenous population.
The Spaniards with their horses, their spears and lances, began to commit murders, and strange cruelties: they entered into towns, burroughs, and villages, sparing neither children nor old men, neither women with child,

They took the little souls by the heels, ramping them from the mother's dugges, and crushed their heads against the cliffs.
Others they cast into the rivers laughing and mocking, and when they tumbled into the water

They put others, together with their mothers, and all that they met, to the edge of the sword. They made certain Gibbets long and low, in such sort, that the feet of the hanged one, touched in a manner the ground, every one enough for thirteen, in honor and worship of our Savior and his twelve Apostles (as they used to speak) and setting to fire, burned them all quick that were

In three or four months (myself being present) there died more then six thousand children, by reason that they had plucked away from them their fathers and mothers, which they sent into the mines.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,263
I know that you are banned, by since you talk about it.

The only thing that europeans brought to america (or the rest of the world for the matter) was diseases, enslavement, rape and massive murder.

The aztecs and the inks had incredible city that didn't have anything to envy to european metropolis of the time, yet those guys came and looted and destroyed everything, for what? to bring what exactly?

Is kinda ironic, I came to this thread to talk about how at times I hate how people in latin america picture the native civilizations as perfect utopias were nothing bad happened, but in all honestly, your post reminded me that no matter how terrible could things be here, those crime were completely irrelevant next to the shit that europeans brought to the entire worlld

TBH if we know MĂ©xico-Tenochtitlan compared to the cities in Europe was because the spaniards say so, and they made sure to record everything regarding the aztec culture and mythos.

And yes the europeans brough a lot of bad things, but they brought their language, religion, culture and other things with them. Sure, none of those things are better than what the native americans have but in the end that's my culture and i wouldn't have in any other way, the meet up of such two different cultures created my cultural and national identity and i wouldn't have it any other way, there is a plaque in Mexico CIty where the last battle between the Aztecs and Spaniards happened that read "It wasn't a victory nor a defeat, it was the painful birth of the mixed Mexico of today".
 

Deleted member 19003

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,809
The people of the time were just as barbaric if not more so than indigenous population.
Yes, colonialism was terribly barbaric too, and I'm not going to try to defend that at all, just like I will not try to defend sacrificing children for religion either. I see this line of debate really not getting very far at all, and I don't want to create some sort of historical atrocity competition. So I'll stop here.
 
Oct 26, 2017
6,574
I understand viewing things through a historical lens. But I have no problem saying that a majority of people would have thought ritualized child sacrifice as highly barbaric even for the time period.
Even the people doing it knew that it wasn't normal. Especially not at that scale. That's why this find is so significant. Either we didn't realise the extend of human sacrifice practices, or we found the evidence of an extremely desperate society or some depraved elites going apeshit to solidify their power.

Or this was just a really sick perverted killing orgy.
Regardless of the reasoning or circumstances, it makes me sick imagining the brutality of the event. Just the duration of it... Eugh
 

Austriacus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
722
Even the people doing it knew that it wasn't normal. Especially not at that scale. That's why this find is so significant. Either we didn't realise the extend of human sacrifice practices, or we found the evidence of an extremely desperate society or some depraved elites going apeshit to solidify their power.

Or this was just a really sick perverted killing orgy.
Regardless of the reasoning or circumstances, it makes me sick imagining the brutality of the event. Just the duration of it... Eugh

The sacrifices seem to be at the end of the Chimu empire, right before they were conquered by the Incas, its possible that the sacrifice was to earn the favor of the moon (their main deity) to win battles or something

The Incas were much better (relatively speaking) about sacrifices. They were rare and normally consisted of only sons of nobility (the incas themeselves) while few in number.
At leasts thats what i remember from my classes at school.

Hahahaha what?

Got anything to back up that statement, mate?

Somebody already responded to it with an article, look up. That article doesnt even take into account modern technologies where we have been able to turn desserts into arable land. We can probably sustain even more today than 10b.