... a continuation of the Aztec slavery discussion

The following topic was closed because it was badly off topic, but the discussion had my interest, so...http://EvC Forum: The Bible Unearthed - Exodus -->EvC Forum: The Bible Unearthed - ExodusIn response to Contracycle's post # 143...Contra, hit the 'reply to' button at the bottom of the post to which you are replying. It makes things easier to track.

quote:

---

Ahuh. I found it on another site.

---

Which one? And why didn't you cite the source originally, thus avoiding this confusion? Also, why exactly did it take two posts to come up with this answer? Seems the first response would have been to cite the source from which you quoted. Instead, you respond dismissively as if hoping the problem would go away. And still haven't mentioned the name of your source.

quote:

---

In either case, they were sufficently in sympathy with my reason to take them as indiacative of the general narrative I was presenting.

---

In sympathy with your narrative, perhaps, but still wrong.

quote:

---

Not everything is a conspiracy, John. Take off the tin foil hat.

---

Conspiracy? There is no theorizing here. I claimed you quoted verbatum from CrystalLinks, and provided evidence. You claim you quoted from another site. Ok. In fairness, I checked. It seems someone going by the name of Sylver Nightshade is taking credit for the article. Check it out at No webpage found at provided URL: http://sylvernightshade.web1000.com/. Spiffy other-worldly-ish mystical graphics, but it doesn't fill me with confidence. You really should check your sources. Still, if only the author wasn't simply wrong about what the codex states...

quote:

---

I did not CITE THE CODEX specifically as supporting my positions

---

No? Ok. Fair enough. Sylver Nightshade cited the codex as evidence for her-- I assume-- position, and you quoted without attribution. Nonetheless, the codex is the ONLY evidence presented in your post #126, other than, of course, your say so. And the codex does not say what Sylver Nightshade implies that it says, which is the only point I made concerning the codex. Why is that hard to understand?

quote:

---

The fact that the codex does not word for word accortd with what we understand to be the historical reality does NOT undermine my argument, it strengthens it; becuase the codex carries a panygeric or propagandist subtext.

---

The fact that the codex disagrees with your account actually strengthens your claim? LOL... you have got to be joking? That the codex disagrees does not negate your claim, for the reasons you give, but neither does it strengthen the claim. What it does do is demonstrate that the codex cannot be used as support for your claim, which, again, is the only point I had to make about the codex. In other words, you have to find something else, and I haven't seen you provide anything at all.

quote:

---

Then I can safely employ precedent for slavery occuring in other mesoAemrican socities as supporting evidence for my claim that the Aztecs were enslaved. Which PaulK requested.

---

Not really. No one is denying that slavery existed in pre-columbian meso-america. Focus, man, focus. The issue is whether the Aztec came to have a cultural identity while enslaved.

quote:

---

I suspect that by the false attribution of the use of crystalinks, you have decided that I'm a frothing fundie making this up as I go along.

---

Lol... and you have the nerve to imply that I am paranoid? Funny...The attribution of the use of CrystalLinks is quite reasonable. CrystalLinks posts verbatum what you posted here without attribution, and you have yet to name your source. As for the rest, 'floundering' methinks. I don't know about 'frothing' nor do I think you are making it up as you go. I do think you have bad information, have therefore drawn bad conclusions, and can't fess up.

quote:

---

I suspect this therefore leads you to anticipate in my argument that is not present.

---

Right.... What have I 'anticipated'? I haven't commented on anything except what you've actually posted.

quote:

---

I have supported my claim...

---

Sorry, you haven't, unless you've done so while I've been writing this.

quote:

---

Burdone of proof lies on those whose argument is least in line with the prevailing documentation.

---

That would mean that the burden of proof is on you. The prevailing documentation is that there were episodes of servitude in Aztec history. But that isn't what you claim. You claimed that the Aztec acquired a cultural identity while enslaved.

quote:

---

Are there ANY precedents of non-coercive relationships between MesoAmerican states?

---

This is ridiculous. None of your ramble addresses the issue of the AZTEC as a people acquiring a cultural identity while in slavery.

quote:

---

Granted. And I suggest there are qualitative differences; Rome was not in the need of a steady supply of POW's to provide for the human sacrifices that kept the sun rising every morning. Rome did not have to "farm" humans for sacrifice, nor did the British Empire.

---

This implies that the Aztec's alleged captors, not the Aztec themselves, practiced human sacrifice on a large scale-- ie. once in awhile doesn't count. Got evidence for this? I can't find any. But what is the point. I can't see how this could be used to your advantage.

quote:

---

...or indeed within "If one was captured in war, slavery was a pleasant option, for the purpose of Aztec warfare was primarily the capture of live human sacrifices. If, however, one had a useful trade, the Tenochca would forego the sacrifice and employ the captive in that trade.

---

But we aren't talking about the Aztec, are we? As you said a breathe previously, we are talking about the conditions of Tepanec servitude. We are talking about Tepanec mores, not Aztec. This is supposedly the time period during which the Aztec were born. You mustn't mix up the chronology.

quote:

---

Thus I regard the attempt to locate some highly specific "definition of slavery" that is frankly an undue abstraction of a complex historical process to be intellectual dishonesty of the highest order.

---

It appears that you wish to characterize any subservience as 'slavery.' This is ridiculous. A kingdom ruled by a more powerful Empire is not a slave nation, yet this the best evidence I have seen is that the pre-Aztec were just that-- a nation ruled by a stronger one. And you call this slavery? The dishonesty is pretty apparent.

quote:

---

The entire rebuttal has rested on a spurious semantic challenge to the word slavery, despite the fact that I used it, knowingly, WELL WITHIN the paramaters of the Aztec political milieu.

---

BS.BTW, why can't you remain focused on your own claim?Oh, yes... some history. Collaboration between Historical Text Archive and LEON404: This page could not be found------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Bugger. I've just lost a large post; bear with me while I recompile it. However, I just wanted to respond to this bullshit directly:

quote:

---

It appears that you wish to characterize any subservience as 'slavery.' This is ridiculous. A kingdom ruled by a more powerful Empire is not a slave nation, yet this the best evidence I have seen is that the pre-Aztec were just that-- a nation ruled by a stronger one. And you call this slavery? The dishonesty is pretty apparent.

---

I have asked previously for a justification of this absurdity.That is WELL WITHIN the bounds of historical slavery.
That is WELL WITHING the Aztec decrsiption of slavery.Will you, or PaulK, please at last post something, even the tiniest shred, of work to support the assertion that it is INNAPROPRIATE to describe this as slavery. Even one. So far you have thoroughly evaded this totally semantic objection. Please give me whatever 'definition' of "slavery" it is that you are using and or to which you are appealing. I am sick and tired of this semantic distortion. Put up or shut up.

I tried to discuss this rationally with you. But it has become obvious that you can only support your assertions with misrepresentations and false accusations.I am not going to contribute to the destruction of another thread by adding any further discussion of the matter.I do not intend to read any further on this thread, and I have reported your post to Admin.

quote:

---

Contra, hit the 'reply to' button at the bottom of the post to which you are replying. It makes things easier to track.

---

For whatever reason, it does not appear to quote the prior message when I use the button.

quote:

---

Which one? And why didn't you cite the source originally, thus avoiding this confusion? Also, why exactly did it take two posts to come up with this answer? Seems the first response would have been to cite the source from which you quoted. Instead, you respond dismissively as if hoping the problem would go away. And still haven't mentioned the name of your source.

---

Once again around the mulberry bush. Because it was trivial and sloppy on my part; because I did not record the site; because it provides an essentially orthodox analysis and is perfectly representative of the self-image of the narrative. All of which you already know.

quote:

---

In sympathy with your narrative, perhaps, but still wrong

---

A bold assertion. Please provide evidence, given that the links you have provided so far undermine your argument.

quote:

---

Spiffy other-worldly-ish mystical graphics, but it doesn't fill me with confidence. You really should check your sources. Still, if only the author wasn't simply wrong about what the codex states...

---

Hardly out of line with the extant consensus

quote:

---

Nonetheless, the codex is the ONLY evidence presented in your post #126, other than, of course, your say so. And the codex does not say what Sylver Nightshade implies that it says, which is the only point I made concerning the codex. Why is that hard to understand?

---

OK. The objection was raised that the Aztecs were never a subjugated people. This absolutes contradicts the codex; I refer you to panel II:19 on a link provided by your own post 127: The Aztecs are taken prisoner and become vassals of the King Tezozomoc of Azcatpotzalco
I did not CITE the CODEX or provide a link to it. I did cite the formative narrative of the Aztecs, which is recorded in the Codex. Your critique of my stance rests purely on the semantic criticism of slavery.

quote:

---

The fact that the codex disagrees with your account actually strengthens your claim?

---

No; merely that a challenge based on the literal inerrancy of the Codex is hogwash, which is presently how it is being employed. The exact temporal sequence is assumed perfect; the exact wording is presumed precise. These are not adequate grounds from which to assert that I am misinterpreting the Codex.

quote:

---

LOL... you have got to be joking? That the codex disagrees does not negate your claim, for the reasons you give, but neither does it strengthen the claim. What it does do is demonstrate that the codex cannot be used as support for your claim, which, again, is the only point I had to make about the codex. In other words, you have to find something else, and I haven't seen you provide anything at all.

---

And yet, the Codex most certainly does support my claim, as your link comprehensively demonstrated.

quote:

---

That would mean that the burden of proof is on you. The prevailing documentation is that there were episodes of servitude in Aztec history. But that isn't what you claim. You claimed that the Aztec acquired a cultural identity while enslaved.

---

Please provide the basis that you are using for distinguishing period of servitude from slavery. Please cite your authority for this particular definition of slavery, or withdraw the semantic objection.

quote:

---

This implies that the Aztec's alleged captors, not the Aztec themselves, practiced human sacrifice on a large scale-- ie. once in awhile doesn't count. Got evidence for this? I can't find any. But what is the point. I can't see how this could be used to your advantage.

---

Does it? Fascinating — how so? Are you further reading my claim formed a cultural identity as formed all aspects of all forms of cultural activity while in captivity. Because I did not advance that claim at all, that is an illogical extension of my argument.I certainly can demonstrate the claim I DID make from your own links:Conrad and Demarest argue that the conversion of the existing Mesoamerican ideology of human sacrifice into a "national" justification for continuous conquest and expansion represents the key innovation which made the Aztec success possible.There is no doubt that pre-existing sanction for human sacrifice existed within MesoAmerican societies since the Toltecs at least. The Aztecs, quite normally, appropriated the methods and ideologies of rule and conquest from those who conquered and ruled them.

quote:

---

But we aren't talking about the Aztec, are we? As you said a breathe previously, we are talking about the conditions of Tepanec servitude. We are talking about Tepanec mores, not Aztec. This is supposedly the time period during which the Aztec were born. You mustn't mix up the chronology.

---

Another odd claim. That is correct, we are talking about the conditions of Tepanec servitude. Therefore is it not valuable to ask what the Aztec means when they address this servitude? We can see what they mean — and we can see that it is entirely in accord with existing regional mores and conventions. And I’m afraid I never made any assertion about the time the Aztecs were born — once again this is a dishonest use of a logical fallacy — the extension of an argument to an illogical degree.

quote:

---

BTW, why can't you remain focused on your own claim?

---

Erm in fact I find it intriguing that you have yet to attack it. All I have been doing is pointing out the absurdities of a semantic objection and, in your most recent post, the use of illogical extension.

quote:

---

I have asked previously for a justification of this absurdity.

---

And it has been given you. Remember this? For examples, we have 1) the pre-Revolutionary war colonies, 2) the Egyptians under Cleopatra, and 3) Judea under the Pilates. Are you claiming these were slave nations?Here are more.1) The middle east under the Ottoman Empire.2) Hong Kong under the British crown.3) Puerto Rico under US law.4) Dukes under Kings is feudal Europe.Are these slave nations? Previously, you responded by pointing out that the Aztec needed to provide sacrifices for their gods. Would you perhaps like to present another such diversion?

quote:

---

That is WELL WITHIN the bounds of historical slavery.

---

Not hardly. If you wish to insist on your definition of slavery, then we must conclude that everyone is enslaved-- nations to other nations, states to federations, counties to states, etc. The idea of slavery becomes meaningless.

quote:

---

Will you, or PaulK, please at last post something, even the tiniest shred, of work to support the assertion that it is INNAPROPRIATE to describe this as slavery.

---

Seems you ought to be explaining why it IS appropriate to describe it as slavery. Your definition is the odd one-- that is, your implied definition that any subservience is slavery. You've been given examples of subservience which does not qualify as slavery, and you AGREED. Thus you understand that not all subservience is slavery-- that to prove slavery, there are other considerations. Yet here you are, right back to the same 'all subjegation is slavery' tripe.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Hi contra:I don't want to get into the slavery discussion, but I would be interested in what sources you've read that describe the Aztec/Chichimec peoples' life from around 1299 (arrival of the Aztec migration at Chapultapec) and ~1325 (founding of Tenochtitln and beginning of political vasselage to the Atzcapotzalco kingdom), and between ~1325 and 1364 (ascension of the Culhuacn prince Acamapichtli to the newly created throne of the Aztec Kingdom). Everything I've read indicates that there was political servitude, but not necessarily slavery. If they were an actual enslaved people during this time - and I'm not saying they weren't - how do your sources explain their apparent ability to recruit a prince of a rival power to be their first king? Acamapichtli reigned for ~40 years - apparently (or allegedly) without warring with the Aztecs' former "masters". His successor Huitzilhuitl actually married one of the daughters of the king of Atzcapotzalco. Most of the things I've read agree that during this entire time the Aztecs paid heavy tribute to Atzcapotzalco (up until Huitzilhuitl's marriage, anyway) - but none indicate this as outright slavery. In addition, Huitzilhuitl's successor was Chimalpopoca (r: 1417-1426), one of the king of Atzcapotzalco's nephews. With this kind of dynastic interweaving, it sounds more like a European-style "musical chair monarchies" than slavery.I'm just curious what your sources say.

quote:

---

Everything I've read indicates that there was political servitude, but not necessarily slavery.

---

I'll have to cite my sources later; equally I don't own every book I've ever read.

quote:

---

If they were an actual enslaved people during this time - and I'm not saying they weren't - how do your sources explain their apparent ability to recruit a prince of a rival power to be their first king?

---

Precedent. Every city existed as its own political entity or a very severely oppressed 'vassal'... and this is why I do not particulalry like the use of the word 'vassal'. A European feudal vassal had independant soveriegnty to a substantially greater degree than a controlled MesoAmerican polity, which was frequently not even permitted to construct its own buildings. And without a temple and a god on it, it could not formally exist.Now, conversely, any temple with a god on it exercised a claim to dominion of the whole world. Needless to say, competition amongst god-kings was intense, substantially more intense than iron age Europe or the Mediterranean (but possibly not more intense than had been the case in mesopotamia - but I digress). Given that the god-kings status was absolute and held in place by terror, there were correspondingly few avenues in which a challenge to legtimimacy might be domestically advanced. There are a very few instances of polities setting up "client states" if you will, but seeing as as soon as the architecture is up they have the very same claim to soveriegnty as the parent polity, its a recipe for disaster.Therefore - if you wanted to be king, you must have a people who will build a temple. And if you want to be a free people, you must have a king on a pyramid whose very first duty is to go out and 'chop' another king. The Aztec aquisition of a 'rival prince' is one of the very few viable mechanisms by which a polity could emerge.

quote:

---

Most of the things I've read agree that during this entire time the Aztecs paid heavy tribute to Atzcapotzalco (up until Huitzilhuitl's marriage, anyway) - but none indicate this as outright slavery.

---

Implicit is this statement is a divergence, as you see it, between "heavy tribute" and slavery. Now, this may or may not be valid - please can you tell me what you see as the distinguishing feature in this case?As I see it, there are no medium states. Either an extent polity is wholly owned and ruled, subject to extraction of sacrificial victims and employed as cannon fodder, or they are independant entities out there 'chopping' others kings. I reject an analogy employing a reference to european vassalage, which I suggest occurred under very different sociopolitical conditions.

quote:

---

In addition, Huitzilhuitl's successor was Chimalpopoca (r: 1417-1426), one of the king of Atzcapotzalco's nephews. With this kind of dynastic interweaving, it sounds more like a European-style "musical chair monarchies" than slavery.

---

Is that really plausible if a kings first duty is to catch and execute another king? This is a duty that supercedes familial relations, being bound up with the fate of the universe and the legitimacy of the state. In order for a collateral line to exercise any aspirations to power, they are tacitly exercising a threat to their own relatives. I claim that there is no evidence at all of the sort of inermarriage and dynastic strategy that characterised European Late Iron Age feudalism.

quote:

---

For whatever reason, it does not appear to quote the prior message when I use the button.

---

It doesn't. It does post, in your reply, a link to the message to which you are replying. It also posts a note to the intended victim that a reply has been made to his or her post.

quote:

---

A bold assertion. Please provide evidence, given that the links you have provided so far undermine your argument.

---

Interesting... The Aztec were mercenary allies. Hmmm.... not slaves? Strange. And again, no slavery.

quote:

---

OK. The objection was raised that the Aztecs were never a subjugated people.

---

Nope. Not the objection. The objection is to the claim that the Aztec acquired a cultural identity while in slavery, as you claimed in post #122 in "The Bible Unearthed-Exodus" thread. Now, granted, 'out of being slaves' does not necessarily mean 'while enslaved.' However, the context of the post to which you replied makes it clear. The discussion was about the Israelite's acquiring a cultural identity WHILE ENSLAVED.

quote:

---

No; merely that a challenge based on the literal inerrancy of the Codex is hogwash, which is presently how it is being employed.

---

BS.

quote:

---

And yet, the Codex most certainly does support my claim, as your link comprehensively demonstrated.

---

Except that you are now weaseling toward a different claim-- that the Aztec were subjegated at point in there history. No argument. That isn't the claim you initially made.

quote:

---

Please provide the basis that you are using for distinguishing period of servitude from slavery. Please cite your authority for this particular definition of slavery, or withdraw the semantic objection.

---

Please learn English. And please pay attention. I did not claim that a 'period of servitude' is different from slavery. What I claimed is that you have not demonstrated that the Aztec acquired a cultural identity while enslaved, as you claimed, and that this is not the same as having demonstrated 'periods of servitude' in Aztec history.

quote:

---

Does it? Fascinating — how so?

---

You are using human sacrifice as a 'qualitative difference' between the subjegation of the Aztec to the Tepanec and that of Egypt to Rome, for example. As the Aztec supposedly enslaved, it would be the practises of the slavers which are the driving forces. Those slavers would be the Tepanec.

quote:

---

Are you further reading my claim formed a cultural identity as formed all aspects of all forms of cultural activity while in captivity. Because I did not advance that claim at all, that is an illogical extension of my argument.

---

Lol... Your point is evaporating. So now we are down to 'some aspects of Aztec social life changed while in captivity.' LOL... That is significantly different than what you first claimed.

quote:

---

I certainly can demonstrate the claim I DID make from your own links:

---

Yes. You demonstrate that there was a continuation of an existing culture right through whatever servitude there may have been. This is not 'forming a cultural identity.'

quote:

---

And I’m afraid I never made any assertion about the time the Aztecs were born — once again this is a dishonest use of a logical fallacy — the extension of an argument to an illogical degree.

---

'Formed a cultural identity'Now you are backpedaling.Interesting that it was a dishonest use of logical fallacy. Pray tell, what would an honest use be?

quote:

---

Erm in fact I find it intriguing that you have yet to attack it.

---

I'll be giggling all day over this one. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

For examples, we have 1) the pre-Revolutionary war colonies, 2) the Egyptians under Cleopatra, and 3) Judea under the Pilates. Are you claiming these were slave nations?

---

Nope.

quote:

---

Are these slave nations? Previously, you responded by pointing out that the Aztec needed to provide sacrifices for their gods. Would you perhaps like to present another such diversion?

---

Please restrict yourself to addressing my claim, not spurious misrepresentations of my claim. At no point have I( claimed that all forms of subjection are qualittatively indistinguishable; indeed, I have asserted the very opposite.

quote:

---

Not hardly. If you wish to insist on your definition of slavery, then we must conclude that everyone is enslaved-- nations to other nations, states to federations, counties to states, etc. The idea of slavery becomes meaningless.

---

Evasion. I have not posited a definition of slavery; in point of fact I think "definitions" are dubious at best and appeals to authority at worst; hence I reject the legitimacy of this semantic straw man.However: I HAVE claimed that the conditions of Aztec subjection - given standing political praxes among mesoamerican polities - can reasonably (or at least, colloquially: let us remember that this entire debate is misdirection from a DIFFERENT point) be described as slavery.

quote:

---

Seems you ought to be explaining why it IS appropriate to describe it as slavery. Your definition is the odd one-- that is, your implied definition that any subservience is slavery. You've been given examples of subservience which does not qualify as slavery, and you AGREED.

---

It is appropriate becuase the control to which they were subject is exactly the control to which they would be subject if defeated in battle and enslaved, becuase that is the status that they possessed in the mesoamerican cultural complex, as a crushed and beaten tribe. After all, as the codex claims: "Aztecs are attacked at Tepetepec and are forced to flee to Pantitlan". Beaten, whipped, nobodies, with no god to protect them, no independance or right or expectation of independance.

quote:

---

Thus you understand that not all subservience is slavery-- that to prove slavery, there are other considerations. Yet here you are, right back to the same 'all subjegation is slavery' tripe.

---

Nonsense. It is precisely BECAUSE of the differences of forms of dominion that it is invalid to use in inappropriate term like "vassalage", which describes a totally different relationship under a totally different set of social and metaphysical assumptions.Thus we see there is still nothing to your argument other than semantic apologetics.

quote:

---

It doesn't. It does post, in your reply, a link to the message to which you are replying. It also posts a note to the intended victim that a reply has been made to his or her post.

---

Well I have used it on every occassion.

quote:

---

Interesting...

​

Occupying an island in a shallow lake surrounded by competing city-states, the Aztecs began their career as mercenary allies of the Tepanec empire.

---

Yes. Please fill in the blank:"And the above is definately not slavery because......"I'm waiting.

quote:

---

The Aztec were mercenary allies. Hmmm.... not slaves? Strange.

---

Please support. What is the distinction you are seeing?

quote:

---

And again, no slavery.

---

Evidence?Oh I see; the author did not use the word slavery. Therefore, it cannot have been anything liek any slavery that ever existed.Appeal to spurious authority. Invalid. Please support your assertion.

quote:

---

Nope. Not the objection. The objection is to the claim that the Aztec acquired a cultural identity while in slavery, as you claimed in post #122 in "The Bible Unearthed-Exodus" thread.

---

Yes, exactly.

quote:

---

Now, granted, 'out of being slaves' does not necessarily mean 'while enslaved.' However, the context of the post to which you replied makes it clear. The discussion was about the Israelite's acquiring a cultural identity WHILE ENSLAVED.

---

Yes, exactly.

quote:

---

BS.

---

Nope.

quote:

---

Except that you are now weaseling toward a different claim-- that the Aztec were subjegated at point in there history. No argument. That isn't the claim you initially made.

---

Well if you concede they were subjugated, your objection then must be that this subjugation never had the slightest impact on their sense of self. Insane claim, easy enough to falsify just by citing the Warsaw Ghetto. Hence the line of attack was semantic distortion.

quote:

---

Please learn English.

---

Ha!

quote:

---

And please pay attention. I did not claim that a 'period of servitude' is different from slavery. What I claimed is that you have not demonstrated that the Aztec acquired a cultural identity while enslaved, as you claimed, and that this is not the same as having demonstrated 'periods of servitude' in Aztec history.

---

I most certainly have. It was a significant enough event to consititute a component of their PUBLICLY formed national mythology. It is absurd to claim that this is accidental or coincidental. If it was not importnat to them, why did they write it down? And if it WAS important to them, please explain why it was important when, you imply, it had absolutely no impact on their sense of self.

quote:

---

You are using human sacrifice as a 'qualitative difference' between the subjegation of the Aztec to the Tepanec and that of Egypt to Rome, for example. As the Aztec supposedly enslaved, it would be the practises of the slavers which are the driving forces. Those slavers would be the Tepanec.

---

Again - I have never claimed that the Aztecs aquired all their cultural parephenalia in such a manner. In fact I specifically refuted that point earlier.

quote:

---

Lol... Your point is evaporating. So now we are down to 'some aspects of Aztec social life changed while in captivity.' LOL... That is significantly different than what you first claimed.

---

It is clear that you never bothered to read what I first wrote. YEs - that was the sum total of my argument becuase, after all, I was only offering an anaology of why the Exodus is important to the self-image of certain groups. And you have thoroughly conceded that the Axtexh wandering and subjugation were indeed important to their sense of identity. So you finally and at last accept the essentially non-controversial claim I first advanced.

quote:

---

Yes. You demonstrate that there was a continuation of an existing culture right through whatever servitude there may have been. This is not 'forming a cultural identity.'

---

Well may I ask what YOU attributed to the words "forming a cultural identify"? Becuase you are putting words in my mouth to salvage your point.

quote:

---

Now you are backpedaling.

---

No, I am not. I have demonstarted your objection to be rubbish.

quote:

---

I'll be giggling all day over this one.

---

Laugh it up.

quote:

---

Well I have used it on every occassion.

---

Apparently, you are using the larger "Post Reply" button, at the bottom of the page. The "reply" button being referred to is the little "reply" with the little red arrow, found at the bottom of each individual message.When you use the "little red arrow reply" button, you get those useful little messages indicating that the message has been replied to, and that a message is a reply to a specific previous message.When you use the "little red arrow reply" button, you also get a display of the message you're replying to. You need to scroll down to below the new message creation box to see it.We used to have a "Quote Reply" button, which would insert the entire message being replied to, into the reply, but the problem to benifit ratio for it was bad. I'll maybe try to bump the topic discussing the demise of the "Quote Reply" button.Hope this helps,
Adminnemooseus

At this point the migration myth enters the realm of actual history. Returning to Chapultepec, the Mexica soon faced another threat, this time from a coalition lead by the Tepanecs of Atxcapotzalco and supported by neighbouring Culhuacan. The coalition aimed to regain control of the copious springs at Chapultepec, and a coveted resource located between the territories of the new communities. The Mexica were seen to be dangerous squatters and were decisively defeated in the woods in the area of modern Chapultepec Park in Mexico City. The refugees dispersed around the countryside and nearby marshes of the lagoon, while the Mexican leader was taken to Culhuacan for sacrifice.Unlike the Tepanecs long before, they had not become assimilated in an older city. Unlike the Chichimec-Acolhua, they had not found a large tract of unclaimed land on which to settle. The reception of the Mexica in the Valley had been marked by major battles and displacements. Through adverse fortune they had come to rest on the islands of a lagoon, where agricultural prospects were meagre, building materials were lacking, and they were surrounded by indifferent or aggressive neighbours. Remarkably, they had the determination to begin anew. These hard circumstances were to have a profound effect on the attitude and actions of the Mexica.-The Aztecs, Richard F. Townsend, ISBN 0-500-28132-7The year 1299 found them at Chapultepec, a former Toltec stronghold, which now lay in the land of the Tepanecs, one of two great powers in the Valley of Mexico. At the time, the Valley was a cauldron of rivalry and enmity, and here the Aztecs, still poor and powerless, were not made welcome. Neighbouring tribes, including the Tepanecs, attacked them, driving them from Chapultepec in 1315, and again, after a brief return, in 1319.At this nadir of their fortunes, the Aztecs appealed to Coxcoxtli, one of the rulers of the Colhuacan on the eastern shore of Lake Texcoco, to the south west of Chapultepec. He allowed them to settle at Tizaapan, 10km west of Culhuacan. Tizaapan, however, was a fearful place, and the Aztecs were not expected to survive among the vistas of volcanic rock and an environment thickly infested with poisonous serpents and other reptiles.Evidently, Coxcoxtli had no great opinion of the wretched refugees. When told that the Aztecs had moved in at Tizaapan, he said: ‘It is good, for they are no true people, but great villains, and perhaps they will perish there, eaten by the serpents’ (Tezozomoc, pp. 49 — 51)[after the Culhuacan/Xipe Totec ritual incident:]
Achitometl, of course, demanded vengeance, and yet again the Aztecs were ejected. They escaped to Acatzintlan on the shore of lake Texcoco, where the water was shallow enough for them to cross. After reaching a small island in the lake, ‘they took shelter among the reeds and rushes, where they passed the night in great anguish and sore affliction, with their women and children still crying and begging that they should be left to die there, as they could bear no more travails.’ (Duran, Vol 2 p. 43)
-The Aztecs, Brenda Ralph Lewis, ISBN 0-7509-2222-2Through dynastic marriage and the invitation to a rival prince to be their god-king, the Aztecs eventually emerged as a sovereign power, but only in about 1423. At this time they were still vassals, but not possessions. This leaves some 100-150 years of servitude and victimisation at the hands of others.[This message has been edited by contracycle, 06-20-2003][This message has been edited by contracycle, 06-20-2003]

quote:

---

"And the above is definately not slavery because......"

---

Grab a dictionary.A mercenary is a PAID soldier-- hardly what one would call a slave. And an ally is a friendly nation or an associate who provides assistance (from Onelooks' quick definitions panel). No one wishing to describe slavery would use these words. Think.

quote:

---

Please support. What is the distinction you are seeing?

---

You have got to be kidding? No one could possibly be as dense as you pretend.

quote:

---

Oh I see; the author did not use the word slavery.

---

Nor did the author describe anything like slavery. Why do you feel that you can read between the lines and see thing the authors do not write? The problem is that all of your evidence is just that-- you seeing things that aren't there. The author wrote 'mercenary' but really meant 'slave.' The author wrote 'ally' but really meant 'slave.' The author wrote 'vassal' but really meant 'slave.' The author wrote 'subject to' but really meant 'enslaved.' The author wrote that the Aztec were kicked out of town, but really meant that they were enslaved. Ridiculous.

quote:

---

Therefore, it cannot have been anything liek any slavery that ever existed.

---

Thereby implying that 'anything like slavery' is slavery. You've fallen down a slippery slope.How 'like' slavery are we going to get, btw? 5%? 10%? 40% 80%?

quote:

---

Yes, exactly.

---

Thus you contradict yourself twice in a row. Or you are very confused.

quote:

---

Well if you concede they were subjugated, your objection then must be that this subjugation never had the slightest impact on their sense of self.

---

No, sorry. The inference you make is not necessary. Careful with those slippery slopes. There are degrees of subjugation and degrees of 'impact.' This is not an all or nothing situation.

quote:

---

It was a significant enough event to consititute a component of their PUBLICLY formed national mythology.

---

And?This is not the claim you made. Why can't you keep track of that? You made the strong claim that the Aztec formed a cultural identity while enslaved. How strong? Well, in the discussion to which you first replied, the question was whether the Israelites could go from unidentifiable as a culture pre-captivity to identifiably Israelite while in captivity. Your response? "The Aztec did it, so why couldn't the Israelites?" That an event was written down does not prove that it 'formed a cultural identity.' Nor does the fact that an event had an impact prove the same. Take 911. Impactful? Yes. Written down? Yes. Formed a US cultural identity? Nope. We've been a distinct cultural entity -- some may argue the 'cultural' -- for some time now.

quote:

---

Again - I have never claimed that the Aztecs aquired all their cultural parephenalia in such a manner. In fact I specifically refuted that point earlier.

---

Right. Your point is becoming weaker and weaker-- to the point of being trivial.

quote:

---

It is clear that you never bothered to read what I first wrote.

---

Indeed, I've read it several times. I am beginning to think you didn't read the thread to which you first replied. See, in the discussion to which you first replied, the question was whether the Israelites could go from unidentifiable as a culture pre-captivity to identifiably Israelite while in captivity.

quote:

---

YEs - that was the sum total of my argument becuase, after all, I was only offering an anaology of why the Exodus is important to the self-image of certain groups.

---

Backpedaling. Or maybe you were just clueless from the get-go. See, in the discussion to which you first replied, the question was whether the Israelites could go from unidentifiable as a culture pre-captivity to identifiably Israelite while in captivity.

quote:

---

So you finally and at last accept the essentially non-controversial claim I first advanced.

---

Altering your position while denying you've done so does not make you look good.

quote:

---

Well may I ask what YOU attributed to the words "forming a cultural identify"?

---

See, in the discussion to which you first replied, the question was whether the Israelites could go from unidentifiable as a culture pre-captivity to identifiably Israelite while in captivity. You presented the Aztec as an example of this having happened.

quote:

---

No, I am not. I have demonstarted your objection to be rubbish.

---

Strange sense of trash you have there.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

A mercenary is a PAID soldier-- hardly what one would call a slave. And an ally is a friendly nation or an associate who provides assistance (from Onelooks' quick definitions panel). No one wishing to describe slavery would use these words. Think.

---

I did think. That is why I chose slavery. A mercenary is indeed a PAID soldier - care to cite evidence of the Aztecs being paid?

quote:

---

You have got to be kidding? No one could possibly be as dense as you pretend.

---

Not at all. You have chosen to launch a semantic criticism; please advance any definition your care to name so that I understand at last understand what distinction it is you claim exists. I see no evidence for a quid pro quo relationship in this era of Aztec history; itnis ALL coercive from beginning to end. Slavery is a suitable term for this relationship IMO - please now defend yours. I have asked you and PaulK to do so on severakl occassions and you have declined. I can only conclude from this that privately you know you have not a leg to stand on.

quote:

---

or did the author describe anything like slavery. Why do you feel that you can read between the lines and see thing the authors do not write?

---

Becuase I have read other authors.

quote:

---

The problem is that all of your evidence is just that-- you seeing things that aren't there. The author wrote 'mercenary' but really meant 'slave.'

---

'Mercenary' might be a meaningful choice to convey to the modern reader the fact that their subjection included direct military service.

quote:

---

The author wrote 'ally' but really meant 'slave.' The author wrote 'vassal' but really meant 'slave.' The author wrote 'subject to' but really meant 'enslaved.' The author wrote that the Aztec were kicked out of town, but really meant that they were enslaved. Ridiculous.

---

Again - please cite the distinction you are seeing. I habe NOT challenged the authors right to use these terms as substantively descriptive; I have only objected to YOUR assertion that this interpretation must be canonical and that the conditions can not be described by any other terms. As above, a mercenary is PAID for their service, whereas the Aztec's were PERMITTED to join an expedition as a concession. I see a distinction; and yet, I do not get into a semantic tiz about it. If you are going to maintain this ridiuclus point, please provide some kind of support.

quote:

---

Thereby implying that 'anything like slavery' is slavery. You've fallen down a slippery slope.

​

How 'like' slavery are we going to get, btw? 5%? 10%? 40% 80%?

---

Irrelevant. My assertion was that this experience affetced their identity. You challeneged my claim on the basis of the word slavery. Please support your claim.

quote:

---

Thus you contradict yourself twice in a row. Or you are very confused.

---

Please follow along, John

quote:

---

No, sorry. The inference you make is not necessary. Careful with those slippery slopes. There are degrees of subjugation and degrees of 'impact.' This is not an all or nothing situation.

---

My god,at last! He gets it!

quote:

---

And?

​

This is not the claim you made. Why can't you keep track of that?

---

I'll quote it again, then, and you can read it again.

quote:

---

You made the strong claim that the Aztec formed a cultural identity while enslaved.

---

No, I asserted that it could be taken as analogous to the Israelite case; you CHOSE to challenge the use of the term 'slavery'
How strong? Well, in the discussion to which you first replied, the question was whether the Israelites could go from unidentifiable as a culture pre-captivity to identifiably Israelite while in captivity. Your response? "The Aztec did it, so why couldn't the Israelites?" [/quote]Bollocks. As mentioned before, you are simply putting words into my mouth. I never made any assertion whatsoever about the totality of cultural identity - only about the role of EXTERNAL PRESSURE on identity.

quote:

---

That an event was written down does not prove that it 'formed a cultural identity.' Nor does the fact that an event had an impact prove the same. Take 911. Impactful? Yes. Written down? Yes. Formed a US cultural identity? Nope. We've been a distinct cultural entity -- some may argue the 'cultural' -- for some time now.

---

This is only relevant to claim I never made.

quote:

---

Right. Your point is becoming weaker and weaker-- to the point of being trivial.

---

Quite true. I regarded it as trivial ast the time, which is exactly why I am so angry that you have taken a semantic different to this absurd degree. You could have said "Well, slavery's not quite the word I would have used" and we could have got on with our lives.

quote:

---

Indeed, I've read it several times. I am beginning to think you didn't read the thread to which you first replied. See, in the discussion to which you first replied, the question was whether the Israelites could go from unidentifiable as a culture pre-captivity to identifiably Israelite while in captivity.

---

Is it not fortuitous, then, that I did not make any comment whatsoever on the matter of whether they were identifiable or otherwise, only that the idea that external pressure helped consolidate their identity was not inherently implausible? Was that not startlingly lucky?

quote:

---

Backpedaling. Or maybe you were just clueless from the get-go. See, in the discussion to which you first replied, the question was whether the Israelites could go from unidentifiable as a culture pre-captivity to identifiably Israelite while in captivity.

---

And see, the response I WROTE only addressed a MECHANISM of cultural formation.

quote:

---

Altering your position while denying you've done so does not make you look good.

---

Demonstrating that you have distorted my point does not weaken me at all.

quote:

---

See, in the discussion to which you first replied, the question was whether the Israelites could go from unidentifiable as a culture pre-captivity to identifiably Israelite while in captivity. You presented the Aztec as an example of this having happened.

---

No. I presented the Aztecs as an example of a group who also experienced external pressure as a consolidating influence.So, as I pointed out early on, this entire debate was triggered by a knee-jerk misreading of the claim. I strongly reccomend you step away from the tinfoil hat and start listening to what people say, not to what the Voices tell you they say.

Why not? They were subject to another power. This is your criterion for claiming the Aztec were enslaved.

quote:

---

At no point have I( claimed that all forms of subjection are qualittatively indistinguishable

---

Your usage certainly implies it. So far, you've interpretted virtually everything as 'slavery.' Some examples? 'Mercenary.' 'Ally.' 'Vassal.' You even found 'slavery' in the following sentence. You add, claiming this proves your point-- remember, your point being that the Aztec "The Aztecs forged themselves an identity (and a persecution complex IMO) out of being slaves..." [quote][b]The Aztecs, quite normally, appropriated the methods and ideologies of rule and conquest from those who conquered and ruled them.

quote:

---

Evasion.

---

Please try to understand a fallacy before invoking it.

quote:

---

I have not posited a definition of slavery

---

Usage implies a definition. If you object, state plainly what you mean by 'slavery.'

quote:

---

in point of fact I think "definitions" are dubious at best and appeals to authority at worst

---

This is absurd. Definition are arbitrary markers intended to convey meaning. They are an integral component of language and hence of communication. Without definitions there can be not exchange of information. What, exactly, about clarifying what you mean do you find dubious? And if you think definitions are appeals to authority, then you don't know what appeal to authority means.

quote:

---

I HAVE claimed that the conditions of Aztec subjection - given standing political praxes among mesoamerican polities - can reasonably (or at least, colloquially: let us remember that this entire debate is misdirection from a DIFFERENT point) be described as slavery.

---

If you'd done this the debate would be over. So far, all you've done is point out that the author said 'mercenary ally' but really meant 'slave.' This doesn't work in any sense, colloquially or not.

quote:

---

It is appropriate becuase the control to which they were subject is exactly the control to which they would be subject if defeated in battle and enslaved, becuase that is the status that they possessed in the mesoamerican cultural complex, as a crushed and beaten tribe. After all, as the codex claims: "Aztecs are attacked at Tepetepec and are forced to flee to Pantitlan". Beaten, whipped, nobodies, with no god to protect them, no independance or right or expectation of independance.

---

Where is the slavery? Now 'crushed' and 'beaten' also mean 'slave'? This is ridiculous. 'Defeated' means 'enslaved.' You have got to do better than that. Germany after WW1-- crushed, beaten, defeated? Yes. Enslaved? Nope. American Indians a hundred years ago-- crushed, beaten, defeated? Yes. Slaves? Nope. Iraq-- crushed, beaten, defeated? Yup. Enslaved? Nope.

quote:

---

It is precisely BECAUSE of the differences of forms of dominion that it is invalid to use in inappropriate term like "vassalage", which describes a totally different relationship under a totally different set of social and metaphysical assumptions.

---

You must demonstrate this assertion. Quite a few people think 'vassal' is appropriate, and no one but you, as far as I can tell, thinks that 'slave' is appropriate. And nothing you've said even comes close to justifying the usage.

quote:

---

Thus we see there is still nothing to your argument other than semantic apologetics.

---

Where you looking in a mirror when you wrote that?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com