I was thinking about this the other day. People will say “There were anti-slavery people back when the Constitution was signed, so folks knew it was wrong!” And I’m like “Those people were probably viewed the same way vegans are now.”
The Aztec were a very brutal nation, not entirely unlike Sparta. ~20 years prior to Spanish contact the Aztec led the “Triple Alliance” of 3 major mesoamerican powers and conquered the surrounding countries to make an empire. The majority of the people in the empire did not like Aztec rule. The Spanish made an alliance with the original nations from the Triple Alliance, built a multinational coalition, and waged a war against the Aztec.
The Aztec and Spanish allies alike both suffered from the smallpox plague. The Spanish alliance emerged victorious and the Spanish, as the most powerful of the bunch on the winning side, took control of the newly formed state.
Moctezuma and Hernan Cortes were friends, they were good friends, when Moctezuma was betrayed and deposed, knowing he was going to be killed he asked Cortes to take care of his kids, and he did, he fought hard in Spain so that they could have titles.
Moctezuma was a Mexica, he was the King of one of the most brutal aztec tribes. History isn’t black and white and not easy.
Not trying to pick a fight, but I wanted to talk this out a bit because it’s something that I feel split about. Take Egypt, for example. Authoritarian government, whose main reason for being authoritarian is to suppress a largely rural Islamist movement from gaining power and creating a theocratic state, but, being authoritarian, they also suppress any critics, but also suppress LGBTQ+ folks to avoid handing red meat to the Islamist movement. Arguably the relatively liberal city dwellers would be far worse off under an islamic theocracy than under a secular authoritarian government. I don’t see what other choices Egypt has. And it’s damn uncomfortable.
How is it better? You missed to address the adminstrative, financial, and judicial corruption, on top of violent oppression and extrajudicial killings, torture and violation of human rights that happens under dictatorships. Ask egyption liberal city dewellers if things were better under Morse, the Islamic brotherhood president who was elected or now under the corrupt military dictatorship of Sisi. They were still able to protest and hold ministers accountable, and even crticize the president himself. Not to mention their freedom of expression, human rights, judicials, elections, ecomony all were miles better. Now their economy, judicial system, elections, freedom of speech, human rights are all gone.
A different and easier example for you is if you consider Saddam in Iraq and Asad in Syria, they used to kill and poison gas reigons that protest against them, but things were good for selfish liberal city dewellers who don’t care about anything but their existance. Same if you ask a Han CPP supporter in Bejin about their government treatment of the Ughyers, he’ll tell you life is good. In my opinion, all dictatorships are rotten and it’s worth to distrupt the good life and unequality which city dewellers enjoyed due to corruption.
You should read Red Rising. It’s science fiction with heavy historical references.
Not only is it the best book series I’ve ever had the pleasure to read, but it also tackles the sticky question of, “What if the oppressors also made our lives better in a lot of ways?”
Thank you for your perspective. EDIT: My understanding of what went down during Morsi’s tenure in office is different than yours. Incidents of violence against Shia and Copts went way up, for example. Morsi also did his best to install Islamic Brotherhood cronies at all levels of government. When the overwhelming majority of folks live in the city, it’s hard to call the minority of rural dwellers that want to impose Islamic rule on people the good guys. I guess I am coming at it from a utilitarian perspective - which type of undesirable government causes the least harm? By no means is authoritarianism desirable, though, I agree with you fully in terms of ideals. EDIT2: I agree that the brutality of authoritarian governments in China, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt are absofuckinglutely terrible.
I recognize that artstyle anywhere, that’s definitely Tim Kreider of The Pain. Goddamned brilliant political comic artist who switched to long-form magazine articles and stopped making his beautiful and hilarious comics about a decade ago. I’m still sad that we went through the whole Trump era without his cartoons.
I look at people trying to turn “centrist” into a pejorative and see George Bush announcing that, “You’re with us, or you’re with the terrorists.” www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qdvm6h8WKg
Nah. “Enlightened centrism” is specifically about people insisting both sides are equally wrong, no matter what either side actually says. As if the sane and moral position is always some even blend of what everyone is saying right now, and the extremes are automatically equal and irrelevant. Like the status quo they live in must be the best of all possible worlds.
It’s not a loyalty test. It’s condemning cocksure flakes who contribute nothing to the conversation because they have no opinion.
Who was talking about “enlightened centrism”? The original comment was just a snide remark about “centrism”, in general.
I don’t even know who these, “enlightened centrists” are supposed to be. I don’t know anyone who claims that identity and I don’t know anyone who advocates for an even blend of what everyone else is saying.
As near as I can tell, both the term “enlightened centrism” and the idea that there are people who want an even blend of polices are straw men.
Such a retarded and bad faith take every time I see it. Centrists don’t hardline every issue down the middle. The entire point of being centrist literally means you don’t hardline at all to either side. If you ask them how they feel about this extremist theoretical dichotomy, ofc they’re going to agree with you on “yeah they should”.
This doesn’t mean they also agree on immigration, financial policies, abortion or take your pick. To subscribe yourself as a democrat or liberal is to say you agree with and endorse that entire line of thought, and any solution to problems they come up with. Centrists would rather take what they feel optimal to the situation and ascribe their perceived pragmatism. Your reductionist propaganda bullshit is just as bad as Bush stating you’re either with us or the terrorists, as the other said.
This comic says nothing about any of those things. The characters aren’t from any of those groups. There is no reference to genocide; ritual sacrifice typically entails within-group violence.
The famous quote, which the comic is presumably referring to, isn’t about race or genocide either.
“democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time” -Winston Churchill
not an expert but [citation needed] on the “within-group violence” statement. From what I remember they quite often sacrificed captured slaves from other nations and ethnicities.
I’m pretty anti-capitalist. Not 100%, but man shit is fucked right now and it’s gotta be reigned in.
A mixed economic system where the necessities of life are not run for profit (maybe even free?) combined with profit-driven progress for the luxuries would be best. With strong unions for all workers of course.
Oh, and fix the democracy too. No more FPTP bullshit.
I’m pretty capitalist and still a big fan of things like the German welfare state. It’s not a perfect system by any means but being poor in Europe sucks slightly less than being poor in north America
Reminds me of the scene in the Netflix show Norseman, where one character says to another, “you have to understand, ritual human sacrifice is not an exact science.”
I know it’s a comic, but this likely wouldn’t be a sentiment held by people at the time. Would recommend The Dawn of Everything by Graeber and Wengrow for more.
There’s a famous Churchill quote about democracy that is almost always misquoted:
‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’
To me, the key words that are often left out entirely are: that have been tried.
For the Aztecs in this picture, it may actually be true that their system was the best one they’d tried so far. Maybe ritual sacrifice of a tiny minority was a small price to pay compared to what they’d experienced until then. Representative democracy with voting rights for all citizens over the age of majority might be the best system we’ve tried so far. Kings willing to devolve some power to their barons in the Magna Carta was the best system for England so far.
We shouldn’t stop trying to make things better. Otherwise we’re like these Aztecs.
What i find sad is that almost no democracy has a sane initiative/referendum system. This is important as inhibitor for politicians lying or otherwise doing what they want.
Their referendums have the force of law, but they passed a referendum that violated the terms of a treaty that had been carefully negotiated to allow them some of the benefits of the EU without actually joining it. It put quotas on immigration and residence permits, including from EU states, but their EU treaties forbid that, and if it had gone into effect it would have meant canceling all EU treaties.
Swiss-EU bilateral treaties on single market participation are all co-dependent; if one is terminated, then all are terminated. Consequently, should Switzerland choose unilaterally to cancel the free movement agreement, then all its single market agreements with the EU will lapse unless a compromise is found.
The Swiss government had to, ‘[climb] down from the initial referendum proposals, adopting instead a “light national preference” to implement the referendum’, which technically violated the terms of the referendum, but it was the only way to preserve Switzerland’s treaties with the EU.
It’s extremely likely that at least some of the people voting on the referendum didn’t understand that it would cancel those treaties. The treaties are basically the reason that Switzerland is so rich. They have a lower individual tax rate than the rest of Europe, but they have treaties allowing people to move freely between the countries. That means that bankers, accountants, consultants, etc. from across Europe are housed in Switzerland where they pay low income tax, but are able to work freely throughout Europe. It’s why the main European bases of the tech giants like Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc. are in Switzerland, drawing employees from all over Europe to the low-tax haven. So, even though Switzerland’s tax rate is low, these are all very highly paid jobs. So, Switzerland gets 20% of 300k CHF, where France gets 50% of 50k Euros.
They thought they could have their cake and eat it too – get the benefits of all the highly paid foreigners coming in to plow money into their economy while also keeping out the foreigners they wanted to keep out. Only people who actually understand the law (the staffers of the Swiss government) truly understood how insane the referendum was. So, to avoid the chaos of an accidental Swiss Brexit, the government had to basically ignore the results of the referendum and implement something very mild which was allowed within the terms of the treaties.
But, far from learning their lesson, there was yet another referendum just a few years later in 2020 that tried an even more explicit break in the treaties. This time it was voted down.
So, it’s pretty insane to have a referendum that could potentially cancel the treaties that your entire economy is based on, leaving the vote up to people who have little to no understanding of the result of that vote. (Hi Brexit!)
Representative democracy with voting rights for all citizens over the age of majority might be the best system we’ve tried
Where? Closest thing I see is a “Rule of representatives elected by representatives elected by less than half the citizens over the age of majority” thing.
I believe that’s the point being made. “Representative Democracy”, or at least the pretense of which some live under at this time, is the best we (“we” referring to a particular group of people, not humanity as a sum) have found so far.
I get the point. My point is that we’re still far from trying an actual “Representative Democracy” for any largish group of people, and that the Democracy of ancient Greece, with all its glaring flaws, was more Democratic than anything we have right now.
Expression of agreement with the previous comment.
I highly encourage everyone to learn…
My wish is to improve the knowledge of the reader and anyone else…
…about how “democratic” they actually are.
…about the different political systems which get called “democracies” by different countries around the world, and how their practical applications differ from the idealized concept of “democracy”.
Considering the awful things the Aztec empire was doing it was probably a natural choice to ally with Cortes to overthrow it. But even if things are bad they can get worse:
In The Conquest of America, Tzvetan Todorov offers a compendium of some of the most chilling reports, mostly from Spanish priests and friars who, even when committed in principle to the belief that the extermination of the Indians was the judgment of God, could not disguise their horror at scenes of Spanish soldiers testing the blades of their weapons by eviscerating random passers-by, and tearing babies off their mother’s backs to be eaten by dogs. Such acts might perhaps be written off as what one would expect when a collection of heavily armed men—many of violent criminal background—are given absolute impunity; but the reports from the mines imply something far more systematic. When Fray Toribio de Motolinia wrote of the ten plagues that he believed God had visited on the inhabitants of Mexico, he listed smallpox, war, famine, labor exactions, taxes (which caused many to sell their children to moneylenders, others to be tortured to death in cruel prisons), and the thousands who died in the building of the capital city. Above all, he insisted, were the uncountable numbers who died in the mines:
"The eighth plague was the slaves whom the Spaniards made in order to put them to work in the mines. At first those who were already slaves of the Aztecs were taken; then those who had given evidence of insubordination; finally all those who could be caught. During the first years after the conquest, the slave traffic flourished, and slaves often changed master. They produced so many marks on their faces, in addition to the royal brand, that they had their faces covered with letters, for they bore the marks of all who had bought and sold them. The ninth plague was the service in the mines, to which the heavily laden Indians traveled sixty leagues or more to carry provisions … When their food gave out they died, either at the mines or on the road, for they had no money to buy food and there was no one to give it to them. Some reached home in such a state that they died soon after. The bodies of those Indians and of the slaves who died in the mines produced such a stench that it caused a pestilence, especially at the mines of Oaxaca. For half a league around these mines and along a great part of the road one could scarcely avoid walking over dead bodies or bones, and the flocks of birds and crows that came to fatten themselves upon the corpses were so numerous that they darkened the sun.”14
We aren’t, not most of us. The conquistadors were bottom of the barrel scum who risked all they had in order to get rich as quickly as possible with the only oversight of some clerics who told them the savages had no soul and could be treated like cattle… and the ones who told them otherwise, were sent away. By the time word got back to the mainland, decades had passed already.
Add comment