mlw
Active Member
When Montezuma, king of the Aztec, was asked, "why he had suffered the republic of Tlaxcala to maintain her independence on his borders", he replied, "that she might furnish him with victims for his gods!" (cf. Prescott, The World of the Aztecs, 1974, p.59). In the ceaseless wars between the two states, prisoners were taken on both sides that the angry gods may be pacified. The Tlaxcalans were later to join the Spanish campaign under Cortez.
How does the mutual consent to war and victimization, in the Tenoctitlan-Tlaxcalan relation, reflect on the modern Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Is there a genuine wish for peace among the two peoples? I suggest that, underlying the conflict, lurks the same archaic thinking that became institutionalized in the Mesoamerican civilizations. The status quo of mutual victimization and scapegoating fulfils the archaic need of transferring and abolishing one's own sins, thus to impart suffering to the other party so that one may oneself avoid suffering.
(continued...)
How does the mutual consent to war and victimization, in the Tenoctitlan-Tlaxcalan relation, reflect on the modern Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Is there a genuine wish for peace among the two peoples? I suggest that, underlying the conflict, lurks the same archaic thinking that became institutionalized in the Mesoamerican civilizations. The status quo of mutual victimization and scapegoating fulfils the archaic need of transferring and abolishing one's own sins, thus to impart suffering to the other party so that one may oneself avoid suffering.
(continued...)
Last edited: