Aztec Research Paper

Carrasco, David and Scot Sessions. Daily Life of the Aztecs: People of the Sun and Earth. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1998.

Loewen continues his article by describing how little the Hispanic culture is exposed in history textbooks, and that “the Spanish are seen as intruders, while the British are seen as settlers” (Loewen 72). The author continues describing his chapter describing that the Pilgrims are rarely elaborated

“One of the great themes of historical literature over the past five centuries has been the assessment of the European discovery of the Americas as one of the two greatest events in human history.” (2). A similar, better-known pronouncement was penned by Francisco Lopez de Gomara, Hernan Cortes’s private secretary

This section highlights that history has created a false narrative depicting the natives as a victimized people, which they were to some extent but only in the fashion that they did not possess the same technology for warfare, immunity of communal diseases transmitted, and they were not anticipating combat. All other factors considered, the natives stood to be a potential threat. In regards to knowledge obtained by Spaniards prior to arrival and knowledge gained from observation, it would be remiss had they not prepared for battle. This argument is not to be misconstrued in approving their actions; I do recognize colonization as an evil for both the reasons employed and its damaging effects, but rather to change the narrative surrounding that of the native people. While they did experience a tragedy, I feel that it is erroneous to write them into history as being incompetent resulting from their

     The Aztecs were an American Indian people who ruled a mighty empire in Mexico from the 1400's to the 1500's. The Aztecs had one of the most advanced civilizations in the Americas and built cities as large as any in Europe at that time. They also practiced a remarkable religion that affected every part of their lives and featured human sacrifice. The Aztecs built towering temples, created huge sculptures, and held impressive ceremonies all for the purpose of worshipping their gods. The Spaniards destroyed their magnificent empire in the year 1521, but the Aztecs left a lasting mark on Mexican life and culture .

The ancient Aztec civilization is usually thought of as a barbaric, unintelligent people throughout modern society. This could be an ideal carried down from the Spaniards that concord the native lands or even something as simple as today’s society creating overblown stereotypes because of conjoined lack of understanding and overall knowledge. But, because of the extensive research and studies done by Miguel León-Portilla we are able to discover the true nature of the Aztec peoples way of life. Within the book “Aztec Thought and Culture” the author explains the develop of the Aztec civilization through education and philosophy as well as describing the Aztec people as an advanced society rather than the popular belief of a savage people and culture.

In Victors and the Vanquished, Schwartz poses the question of “How can we evaluate conflicting sources” (ix)? Through reading historical events such as the “Conquest of New Spain” there is an undeniably large amount of destruction of cultural material and bias testimonies of events recorded several years after they occurred. After analyzing the Spanish Conquest of Mesoamerica there is a debatable amount of evidence from the Mesoamericans and Spanish explanations of this event in history. The intentions of each explanation created a conflict to historians, art historians and anthropologists on which viewpoint holds to accuracy. There is also the issue of not only inaccuracies, but the motives behind each bias account. As many of these aspects are taken into consideration, interpreting each justification between both sides of history in Mesoamerica as a clash of ethnocentrism between two different cultures that causes an uncertainty of what actually happened in history.

The Conquest of Mexico and the conversion of the peoples of New Spain can and should be included among the histories of the world, not only because it was well done but because it was very great. . . . Long live, then, the name and memory of him [Cortés] who conquered so vast a land, converted such a multitude of men, cast down so many men, cast down so many men, cast down so many idols, and put an end to so much sacrifice and the eating of human flesh! —Francisco López de Gómara (1552)

Chapter one of Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States discusses the differences between the culture and attitudes of the Europeans and the Native Americans. It further describes how the Europeans came to the New World and committed genocide against the Native Americans in order to get land and gold from them, which displayed the cruelty and greed of the European explorers coming to the Americas. However, many historians consider these actions by the European Conquistadors to be necessary in order for human progress to occur, but Zinn argues whether human progress needed all of these barbaric actions. He talks about how history has had many important details left out of many events and believes that it is important for history to be seen for all that happened. For example, Zinn writes, “To emphasize the heroism of Columbus and his successors as navigators and discoverers, and to de-emphasize their genocide, is not a technical necessity but an ideological choice. It serves- unwittingly-to justify what was done.” (Zinn) This quotation shows how Zinn emphasizes how this brutality was not a necessity but it is a choice on how it should be interpreted. Zinn also talks about Hernando Cortes’ time with the Aztec Empire. In the text, Zinn writes, “Cortes then began his march of death from town to town, using deception, turning Aztec against

The Aztec empire has been said to be the “greatest engineers in the Americas” and rival the Roman Empire in technology. The Aztec Empire had luxurious pyramids, temples and a gleaming capital city called Tenochtitlan, that in its golden years, was said to house over 200,000-250,000 Aztecs. Tenochtitlan was larger than Rome, London and Madrid put together. On top of it’s large population, the people and streets were very pristine. The Tenochtitlan citizens took daily baths to ensure they were fully clean. Infact, Tenochtitlan had public baths and lavatories for the citizens.

This reaction pertains to your second paragraph with regards to Spain’s defense. You said, “Indians were not enslaved because they received wages for their work” and “They were not denied the right to own land”, my question is why? Why did the Indians need to be paid a wage for when the land is theirs? The land belongs to their tribes. It should be the Spaniards who are supposed to pay them because they are profiting on a land that is not theirs to begin with. Long before Spain set foot in America the Indians were already there, cultivating the land. The Indians were living peacefully when Spain came and conquered them. What right does Spain have to enslave the Indians and deny them of their own lands? Just because Spain thought they were smarter

American Indians is a native American inhabitants of North America. Paleo-Indians are the person who originally entered America and settled and they mainly lived in Mexico and South America. The three important things we need to know about American Indians prior to European invasion are the culture of Maya, Aztec, and the Anasazi.

The Mexica warriors were accustomed to a specific type of war and the Spanish strategies of ambush, massacre, and battle ground killing were surprising and unthinkable, causing more unpredictability regarding the nature of the Spaniards. Eventually, after constant battle the “Mexicans submitted to their fate, when that fate was manifest” (Clendennin, 1991, pg 88) and the people left their ruined city. The different understandings of war that the Mexica had in comparison to the Spaniards proved important in the reasons the Mexica failed. She claims miscommunications occurred on both sides equally. Like Todorov she attributes the inability of the natives in predicting Spanish behavior to the destruction of “Indian confidence” (pg 74). The miscommunication, between customs of war and the Mexica accounts show this struggle. Unlike in Todorov’s article which depicted Cortes as destined to win and the Mexica as simply

The Spanish Conquests were led and completed by extraordinary, Spanish soldiers that received no help from translators as they obliterated the inferior, native culture! Right? Well, not quite. In fact, these are the very myths that Restall’s book sets out to disprove. From the time they were recorded in ink as primary sources to even now when historians heatedly debate historic events, facts have been misconstrued. Nevertheless, these biased stories have been blindly accepted as truth because sources were not cross-checked, inaccurate primary sources were accepted, and later history changed perceptions of earlier events. Most of the problems with primary sources stem from the Spanish playing down their mistakes and uncertainties and enhancing their successes in the foreign land. The continual reliability on just well-known, primary sources gives a very one-sided view of history which has spawned a plethora of inaccurate information. Readers should take away from Restall’s analyzation that just ordinary businessmen, along with indigenous groups and Africans sought riches in the Americas. While Conquistadors were there, they never reached full control over the natives, and rather than desolating the culture, Natives adapted and blended Spanish culture within their own. The Spanish were also not superior to the indigenous people, they just brought deadly diseases over that devastated native population numbers and had steel weapons that were critical in battle. Historians

When studying history, the further back on the timeline we focus, the less physical evidence is available about the events and people of the time. Therefore, we are often forced to rely solely on primary writings to learn about the past. However, these texts, even though written by those experiencing the event in question, are not always reliable sources of information. They could possibly misconstrue information, from which the reader, if they do not consult multiple sources, will gain a biased understanding. While the original writers might not have always intended to include inaccuracies in their works, other might have purposefully altered the events, through exaggeration or the inclusion of completely fictional aspects. Therefore, it is important to analyze the writer’s audience and motives for the specific document to see if they would have any reason for deviating from the truth. Cortés ' Letter and We People Here both present different accounts of Cortés’ interactions with the indigenous people for this reason. Other fallacies in historical texts could also be based on the writer’s existing bias of the time. A comparison of The Siege of Guanajuato and The Political Evolution of the Mexican People, a secondary source, highlights each of the texts’ own biases that might have otherwise gone unnoticed. These two causes of inaccuracy, intentional alteration and unintentional bias, perpetuate misinformation if not cross-referenced with other sources.