[Aztlan] El mantra de la manipulacion de la historia "axteca"

[Jorge Pérez de Lara]

Listeros, some comments regarding listero Bertrand Lobjois' reply to  
Roberto Romero's postings:

On Jan 16, 2010, at 8:39 PM, Bertrand Lobjois wrote:

> Estimado Roberto,
>
> Firstly I was shocked by the words you used in your message, But I
> remembered how you're used to provoke this kind of debate. You think  
> that a
> lot of modern interpreters have imagined that Itzcoatl was a kind of
> Goebbels. The references to the Nazis shouldn't been proposed. I was  
> born
> and I lived in a country who was occupied by the Nazis by the way  
> and a lot
> of people don't even imagine what was our grand-grand or grand- 
> parents life
> was during this horrible period...

I want to say that I did not feel offended (nor shocked) by Roberto's  
comment. I do think that political correctness sometimes has gotten  
the best of us and allusions to parallels can and should be allowed,  
if they are used to make a valid point. On the other hand, I don't  
think the indigenous populations' view of Spanish intervention would  
be much different (and it has lasted much longer) to that of the  
citizens of Nazi-occupied France.

> Going back to the theme of the manipulation of history, I add that  
> it was a
> very common act if we consider that sometimes, the maya cities  
> chronology
> doesn't fit. Some reigns or battle dates change from a city to  
> another.

I am not aware of any such chronological discrepancies between the  
historical records of different cities. In fact, one of the strongest  
arguments for a guarded trustworthiness of Maya historical records is  
the almost complete absence of contradictions. Yet you allude to them  
as if they were common. Can you point to specific examples if you are  
aware of them?

> In Xochicalco, on the Feathered Serpent Pyramid, an Epiclassic  
> building, we
> can see two date glyphs related by a rope showing us modifications  
> in the
> Mesoamerican calendar.

This is an old idea (that the rope around calendrical glyphs  
represents some kind of correction) and it is just a hypothesis for  
which there is not yet any actual evidence. It could be interpreted in  
many ways, so I think presenting this as a "known thing" is in itself  
misleading. What the rope around the calendrical glyphs mean is still  
very much an open question. Let us not forget that not that long ago  
Copan Altar Q was considered to be a gathering of astronomers.

> So did Moctezuma II when he changed at least two calendar dates.  
> First he
> decided to move Tlacaxipehualiztli as the Equinox feast so that and  
> the Sun
> birth feast was removed from 1 to 21 Panquetzalitztli. So if a ruler  
> decided
> the ritual calendar, why shouldn't modify or remove dates or events  
> of the
> history that don't fit with a glorious past that can justify your  
> power. The
> Teocalli of the Holy War shows us how the date for the New Fire  
> Ceremony was
> changed by Moctezuma from an 1 Rabbit day to a 2 Cane day. The two  
> glyphs
> are tied by a rope showing us a change in the history. On this  
> sculpture we
> can observe Moctezuma among gods like Huitzilopochtli.
>
> Compare some events related by the Tenochas and the same related by
> Tlaxcaltecans, they are related in the same way...
>
> For all these reflexions, read Graulich (1987). He explains all the  
> sources
> he uses for his demonstration.
>
> And as you asked us where the information ... Try to show that Mexica
> official history never changed...

This is the classic demand to prove a negative (you can't). I think  
that it is upon the incumbent postulating a point (in this case, that  
the Mexica manipulated history) to prove their point and not the other  
way around.

> As a final question : why do we have so little information in  
> chronicles
> about the first Mexica Kings of Tenochtitlan ?

This one's easy: for the same reasons that we have so little  
information about the first kings of Palenque: their monuments have  
been built over by their successors and the way information is  
recovered is very much an artifact of the way excavations have been  
carried out: with an emphasis on later buildings and monuments.

> As Mario said, it seems to be a human pattern to modify history  
> according to
> the rulers need. That's what happens when Mexican president Miguel  
> Aleman
> proposed to teach in school the "heroic" resistance of the Niños  
> Heroes. If
> we consider Ancient Egypt, Akhenaton images were destroyed on  
> purposed and
> his name erased from official history...

Yes, humans share many common behaviors, but it is the subtle,  
specific ways in which each group acts along those common lines that  
are of interest us. Furthermore, because A and B do it, this cannot be  
considered as evidence that C does it to. The likelihood of a similar  
behavior increases, but it still has to be proved. And why is it valid  
to speak of the Mexica in comparison a post-Revolutionary Mexican  
president but illicit to allude to Goebbels for making a point about  
propagandistic historical manipulation?