Demystifying the Aztecs

By William Allingham
You can get amazed by the skill with which beavers construct their homes in the rivers but that doesnt mean that you would like to live in one of them or that they are equivalent to human constructions. They are too different to even make an interesting comparison, also you can get excited to have an adventure, visiting some exotic country but that doesn't mean you would enjoy living in that uncivilized place (with its crazy exceptions of course). If those dangerous lifestyles were desirable we would not need to go so far to see them and we would adopt them at home. I think that most of the admiration that the first explorers had when discovering mexico was not because they thought the societies they found were advanced (which they were not) but because they were exotic. By that time Europeans already had contact with different civilizations but they have never seen something alike to what they saw in Mesoamerica: Something intermediate between wildlife and a civilization. It was so unexpected that it produced different reactions. On one hand they didn't know how to classify their inhabitants -Nowadays its denounced as a bad thing that Indians were considered by The Church as having no soul but in that time, under those circumstances how could they know? (Mexicans didn't do better when they met with blacks or when they wiped out Chinese to death in modern times)- on the other hand some felt pity for them and tried to give them special treatment but in either case Scriptures say nothing about this people. Indians were physically very different, with less gracilized features, they have never come across with the wheel and with exemption to the emperor they hanged around almost naked. They had no such things as sugar, bread or iron (neither swords) and their dirty markets sold slaves and human flesh as food (the emperors banquet included children limbs). In fewer words they had only this big stone buildings that resembled those of Mesopotamia -At the time already extinct. With the detail that those buildings of Mesopotamia were better designed and the civilization in which they were constructed was more advanced than any of Mesoamerica. Theres even a theory that civilization was brought to Mesoamerica by the Sumerians (that could explain the similarities with Ziggurats and why some aspects of Mesoamerican technology were passed on like religious theory and not as practical subjects) anyway it would be to fall into speculation. I have noted that European conquistadors and explorers described the new world cities as beautiful and impressing but you can say the same things about sea shells with their patterns and colors, although the animals that construct them are among the simplest. Europeans knew for granted their superiority and also the Aztecs (worshiping them as gods as soon as they saw them. Even, nowadays in mexico a Pygmentocracy prevails, in which European features are admired as the beauty standard) but even with that in mind and acknowledging the differences, to see that spectacle of life must have been surprising; I often get startled with the beauty of nature although that doesn't mean that a handsome sea star is comparable in abilities with humans. I think Spaniards never saw their status menaced thus they didn't hesitate in praising what they found; however, their attitude would have been less generous if they knew the bad use egalitarians would make of their writings. Today the assumption in Hispanic movements is: When the chronicles talk about nasty sacrifice they are spurious and unreliable but if two paragraphs below they say good things about the Indians these same spurious writings suddenly become valid and

trustworthy (whatever fits their interests must be true, provided theres no one to challenge their assertions). We know that the highest IQs in the bell curve belong to three groups (in descending order): *The Semites (including the Jews) around 108 *The East Asians (Chinese & Japanese) around 105 *Whites (including Mediterraneanids) around 100 Its no coincidence that precisely these three groups are the only ones that have created civilization by their own and have influenced our history (Mesoamericans had societies that could not be considered civilizations See Race by Baker). The extraordinary thing about whites, that in perspective, make us succeed the other two in achievements, are in my thinking two factors: *Whites have a character that promotes freedom (although, not libertinage) and creativity. *Whites produce more, out of the norm geniuses. This latter point I think is important because all improvements in the history of a society come from its geniuses. From philosophy, with technology encompassing all, through music and architecture, until reaching modern science. If geniuses are the propulsors, no matter if on average a group has higher IQs, if they dont produce enough geniuses they would be like a capable work force with no diligent administration. In the case of whites, besides of producing more geniuses, the rest are intelligent enough to cope with these geniuses, something that unfortunately doesn't happen with exceptional blacks or Mexicans (who usually look to associate with whites). Regarding the possibility of sustaining a highly technological and peaceful civilization, mexicans, beside their intelligence, have other odds against them, like their character and their evolutionary strategies. We could make the case that our brains, after millennia of selection, are hardwired differently and that our singular moral view of life is a racial trait specific of whites (although not exclusive) that is not being fully grasped by others and that mexicans and blacks might have a greater tendency to see other people more like tools instead of individuals. The IQ of the Aztecs must have been something very similar to the one of their modern descendants, around 70 (for full blooded Indians), this explains a lot but not everything, this explains the lack of technological achievement and philosophy but doesn't explain their religious beliefs or their manners. Seeing their culture as an agglomerate of evolutionary strategies they tell us about their character (which I believe is independent from intelligence). Human sacrifice is considered by experts as a way of canalizing anger and violence in a society. Using this argument we can say that if the Aztecs practiced human sacrifice the way they did, in a much greater scale than any other group is because they have more violent tendencies, including cannibalism which is the greatest act of violence a human can inflict to another (even if cannibalism was not exclusive of them, the scale in which they practiced it, was by far greater than in most of human groups). There are also Ethnohistorical relates about South American tribes whose existence orbited around vengeance, and blood curses between families that resulted in lifestyles which fell into the absurd (See Latin American Indigenous Warfare & Ritual Violence).

The connection between culture and genes (that all evolutionists intuit) is more evident if we see modern mexicos problems compared with the ones of the ancient Indians. I will just quickly summarize some of the difficulties the Maya and Aztecs encountered; to see if they sound familiar with contemporary mexico: The Maya had overpopulated cities and a political mode in which alliances were not reliable, thus rival factions (sometimes of the same family) competing for power, promoted local violence that often got out of control, leading to the destruction of the system from inside. They never developed a complex economical order but rather depended on warfare (a parasitic setup) nurturing heavily from the exploitation of near societies and also had some sorts of trade. Its interesting too, that blood thirsty narco-crimes are performed in a very similar manner to the treatment the Aztecs gave to their war enemies, the ethics of Mesoamerican warfare being very similar to the ones of modern narco-criminals (I didn't knew until after writing this article that Wake Up Call From Mexico makes this same point). This leads our attention to religion. mexico being considered by the Church as one of the most devoted countries (this is so paradoxically misleading for reasons I explain below) after centuries of Christianity suddenly, a cult very alike to the ones of the Aztecs emerges in plain XXI century! Which is quickly spreading and makes reverence to a macabre, bogus saint called Santa Muerte(holy death). Why if Christianity took so many pains and so long to take roots in mexico, this exaltation of death, ignores all that and arises so easily, despite that its predecessor cults were abolished so long ago? The most disconcerting thing is that for mexicans theres no contradiction (In any case they have never practiced a normal Christianity, they had to lend for themselves a version of a black, Moorish Madonna called originally in Spain Guadalupe of Extremadura who arrived with the tale of Indian Juan Diego, John Doe of the mountain, who nevertheless was sanctified despite the fact that mexican and Spanish religious authorities have denied his existence, recognizing him as a pious lie devised to facilitate conversion) perhaps mexicans dont take it so seriously or because of a deep ignorance about what the precepts of Christianity really are (Spanish historian and priest Fray Sebastian Garcia says that the virgin of Guadalupe was commissioned without child to the Indian painter Marcos Tupac because Indians would not grasp the immaculate conception idea) also we have to know that in south America some people use Christianity to justify domestic violence and illegitimacy with ideologies as: The man is the king on his house, the same as Christ is the king of the church in other words, they see themselves not as responsible individuals that have to give account in a voluntary relationship but as a version of Christ with divine authority that cannot be questioned by his wife or other familiars. In the best of cases this would be OK if we didn't know that to give too much power to someone with loose responsibility is always an invitation to abuse. Why it doesn't surprise me that where more embedded and accepted is domestic violence is in indigenous communities of Guatemala and Mexico? As authorities say, women protect their husbands from the law and neither of both sees it as something wrong because its their culture and tradition against which Christianity and the government has not been able to compete. This observation reminds me of the role of

religion in marital loyalty, or as an author quoted while examining the situation in south America "I dint find evidence [...] that religious people are particularly faithful" (according to some polls and studies the most loyal husbands seem to be the Australian men and the less seem to be Black Africans followed by South Americans) or as Oscar Lewis proposed while studying mestizo families in mexico "There is an awareness of middle-class values [...] however, they do not live by them". This might appear puzzling and contradictory at first sight but we have to take on account differences in values, this means different ways of reacting and understanding a situation. A mexican maybe prompt to pretend he comprehends and agrees to something, perhaps for fear or shame but in practice to do the contrary. This is not uncommon in a country of denial where nothing happens. Another interesting parallel is that a modern young Mexican will have a strong tendency to have children with different women (often older) whom in their turn already have children from different men, this would not make any sense to the western mind (and tastes) if we didn't contemplate that the Aztecs were polygamous and raised their offspring in a similar way (nobody feeling uneasy about children not knowing their fathers). Also some people think that Mexicans have higher birth rates because they make children with other children! They point out the lack of laws for sexual consent age in some parts of mexico (Does existing a law for something in mexico makes any difference, anyway?) and to laws for sexual consent age in other parts of mexico, as permissive as 13 years old: Most people dont know that the age of sexual consent in Mexico would be a Felony rape charge in America. Mexico has 32 legal Jurisdictions with laws that vary but here is the breakdown: The age of consent in one Jurisdiction is 15. The age of consent in seven Jurisdictions is 14. The age of consent in one Jurisdiction is 13 and the age of consent in 21 of mexicos Jurisdictions is 12. Two Jurisdictions dont even have an age of consent, allowing the child to get raped when they reach Puberty. But those arguments belong to different subjects. Anyway, the first cause of all of this might be traced back to the natural tendency of people to ADAPT an ideology (be it religion or whatever) to their already intrinsic values and character (biology?). Why is it important to know this? Well, modern Mexicans who immigrate to the USA pretend not to know why their country is almost a failed state but looking into its history some patterns arise. I will put this in a very simple manner: If Mexicans on average were as honest, proactive and hard working as they claim, if they were as intolerant to corruption and violence and full of inventive... Do you think they would permit a lazy, corrupt leader to jump out all of that, turning over all those strong values, instead of enjoying their fruits and impose poverty, dishonesty and ignorance in most of Mexican homes? I rather believe that if at the individual level enough persons with loose morality converge then, institutions that reflect the behavior of the majority will manifest themselves in the public stages until spreading to a whole country where criminals are more prosperous than the government itself. A culture requires so much input, repetitious imitation and promotion that cannot help reflecting their peoples beliefs.

Also a good source of knowledge about the ingeniousness of a people is to compare... What two different groups do with the same material? Cacao is a product of nature and not the invention of any human group but while the Aztecs had a bitter, purgative beverage which they prepared with hot peppers instead of sugar; Europeans invented one of the most delicious foods that have added to our tradition of bakery and desserts, Im talking about Chocolates which are enjoyed today, even by Mexicans. This art of bakery and desserts ranks among the highest expressions of cuisine because it requires many abilities, knowledge and technologies. In Europe the making of sweet bread remounts to prehistory but by the time of the Renaissance the Aztecs had not even regular bread, they had only its predecessor, tortillas, which are the simplest form of cooking flour (still basic in modern Mexican food, that by the way, Neurobiologists point out that a diet based so heavily in this kind of maize reduces serorotonine [happiness and wellness] levels in the brain). Even today common Mexican families use the oven for storing pans and not for cooking in it. Little facts like this give us a glimpse of the tradition and inventive people use in common life. If I didn't thought inappropriate to use white mexicans to represent mexico, because they are only a minority there (it would be like Vietnamese being promoted as the image of the typical British) I would say that white mexicans have better reasons to feel proud about their past than the resting 91%, because it was white Spaniards (living in mexico) who invented Tequila, only after bringing distillation techniques from Europe and we know that on the time, the caste system was on practice so only full blood Europeans had access to innovations and technology in mexico, they also brought for their exclusive entertainment (although later spreading to all the population) arts and music styles from Italy, France and Spain but anyway the quality of interpretation and the thematic of letters degraded so much until becoming those annoying, gaudy music forms so popular in mexico.