Furthermore, many those sacrificial victims were murdered due to perceived utility (invoking deities for boons/miracles), as opposed to Romans literally murdering people for entertainment value (not defending either practice, just saying that both cultures were brutal af).
U want to compare how utilarian roman society building was to building pyramids? That's about the biggest waste of rock n manpower u could do. You are literally just stacking rock together in a triangle, most of the space is not, cannot even be used, only a fraction of it. Compare that to building a senate, aqueducts, etc.
"You know, we have all these human resources, all this money, rocks n stuff, maybe we could make something good for our society so we n future generations could prosper!"
"Nah, dude. Lets just take as much rock as we can find, throw it in a big pile, he who has the biggest pile wins!"
Last edited by Ihavewaffles; 2021-04-19 at 02:15 PM.
Roman Architecture was categorically not "utilitarian". It was explicitly intended as a statement of power and control, even the road-building. Most of the structures you'd pick out as "classic Roman architecture" boil down to temples or entertainment complexes like the Colosseum or the Circus Maximus.
You're just prejudicially dismissing the achievements of non-white cultures, based on an entirely eurocentric set of standards.
And I'm saying this as someone who specifically went to Italy and Greece to experience those structures first-hand. So I am by no means dismissing how impressive they are. I'm just not going to shit over non-white cultures with similarly-impressive architecture.
Last edited by Endus; 2021-04-19 at 02:39 PM.
No, the Nazi ideal was the Germanic or Aryan race (allowing variations of stature, hair and eye color). The Anglo-Saxon aren't the typical Aryans and WASP combines it with a class-concept which the Nazis rejected; and a religion that wasn't that important for them either.
Are you blind to the difference? From a WASP-perspective the Nazis weren't really the ideal; whereas Hitler viewed the US as degenerates, hedonists, and materialists (although he admired the handling of the native Americans).
Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi
What are you talking about; the correct statement is that
Contrast a debutante ball (typical for WASP) with:
"Women were expected to be strong, healthy, and vital. The sturdy peasant woman who worked the land and bore strong children was considered ideal, and women were praised for being athletic and tanned from working outdoors."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany
King Leopold II of Belgium was cutting off the hands and feet of Africans who didn't make quotas or dared to cause trouble in the Congo. This was the late 19th Century. It's just one example of colonial atrocities committed by Europeans. Here's another one, Europeans purposefully spreading smallpox to Native Americans in the 17th and 18th centuries.
There's plenty of European brutality and cruelty that is just as bad as the Aztecs ripping hearts out of sacrificial victims, and much of it far more recent than the Aztecs themselves. Don't be willfully ignorant.
Putin khuliyo
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
That seems like an oversimplification based on modern standards; or even a myth created by the early christians.
By discussing "dudes" you imply that they were of equal status - and in that case there would have been social consequences (at least many say - we might have misunderstood them; and standards changed during the times): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual...Male_sexuality
Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi
There is really only one documented case in where some Franco-Swiss mercenaries serving under the British Crown wrote in their journals about trying to infect Native Americans during a siege. The issue is that the Natives looted clothes and blankets from a hospital that were infected from patients with smallpox as well. Everything else is debatable.
Also, don't forget that the accounts about the Aztecs were written primarily by Spanish Priests. Who could have inflated or misrepresented the Aztecs to make them appear more barbaric as well.
No, Anglo-Saxons didn't yet exist. When the Romans were running Britain (which was then full of Britons and Picts), the Saxons (who certainly were considered barbarians) were still living in Saxony. Available evidence says they didn't begin to significantly migrate to the isles until after the Romans left in 410.
Warning : Above post may contain snark and/or sarcasm. Try reparsing with the /s argument before replying.
What the world has learned is that America is never more than one election away from losing its goddamned mindMe on Elite : Dangerous | My WoW charactersOriginally Posted by Howard Tayler
While it is true that the spaniards tried to paint the aztecs in the worst possible light, archaeology suggests that most of their sacrifice reports are actually true.
There is other evidence too, because the aztecs (as newcomers and conquererors) weren't exactly liked by the other peoples living there, so there are other sources for the amount/gruesomeness.
They probably wouldn’t have been big fans of the prejudice thoughts of Romans due to skin colour.
Light skin has too much blood. Light skin meant good for battle but not intelligent but still brave.
Dark skin meant shrewd and smart but cowards who would run from a fight. But Romana of course being neither too dark or light were the perfect balance. Not rushing off into battle due to overly brave and British white skin. And not too dark to the point they become shrewd tricksters who are pure cowards running away from a fight.