The Aztecs (real name Mexica) were located in Central Mexico, which part of North America. Not South America. And there were numerous civilizations all over Mexico, Central America, and South America. You only hear about the Mexica and Inca so much because they were the ones who encountered the Spanish first.
One example I can think of is the Iroquois Confederacy AKA the Haudenosaunee who were located in northeastern North America snd upstate New York. It was a confederation of six Native tribes that formed their own legislature. And it was matriarchal.
>or an empire
They were the empire. The Confederacy battled and conquered Algic people constantly. They even fought other Iroquois people, such as the Neutral.
In Upstate NY we have a region called the Adirondacks.
The term is a slur against Algonquians. It means "tree eaters." The Iroquois had primitive agriculture, the Algics did not. So when harsh winters came, the latter were forced to strip bark from the trees and eat it.
They didn't have a big city but they absolutely had an empire. Stretched as far as Kentucky and Illinois, they ethnically cleansed Ohio, besieged Montreal. Were a major power in the American backcountry and the French pissing them off is why New France was never quite the overwhelming power it looked like on paper.
Iroquois troops definitely fought and occasionally won battles in both those states, but I agree they never established firm control.
Still, I think it's notable the French and their various allies felt the need to have them renounce the claim in the first place, speaks to their power and ambitions.
>or an empire
They were the empire. The Confederacy battled and conquered Algic people constantly. They even fought other Iroquois people, such as the Neutral.
In Upstate NY we have a region called the Adirondacks.
The term is a slur against Algonquians. It means "tree eaters." The Iroquois had primitive agriculture, the Algics did not. So when harsh winters came, the latter were forced to strip bark from the trees and eat it.
Shit created post-euro colonization doesn't count. Too many outside factors at play there.
Iroquois seem way more complex despite not having as ostentatious material culture
Iroquois had more complex and resilient societies, societies were everyone was high iq and independent. Despite being from more primitive societies they went toe to toe with the French British and Americas and were finally sealed by centuries of attrition and unwillingness to adapt. Inca and Mayans fell at the first strike of crisis probably due organization being so top heavy
The United States of America is geographically, culturally and genetically much closer to the Aztecs than any country in South America is. Mexico is in North America.
And there were many more advanced cultures and empires in the mesoamerican and andean regions than just those 2.
1. THE AZTECS WERE IN THE GEOANTHROPOLOGICAL REGION CALLED «MESOAMERICA»; MESOAMERICA IS IN NORTHAMERICA.
2. SEE ATTACHED IMAGE.
3. THE MEXICA POLITY WAS NOT AN EMPIRE: IT WAS A FEDERATION.
4. THE AMERINDIANS FROM ARIDOAMERICA TO THE ARCTIC CIRCLE NEVER COALESCED INTO GREAT POLITICAL ENTITIES BECAUSE THE CLIMATES ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY TEMPERATE; THE CLIMATES, FROM WHAT IS NOW NORTHERN MEXICO TO WHAT IS NOW NORTHERN CANADA, ARE, EITHER, EXTREMELY ARID & HOT, OR EXTREMELY HUMID & COLD, PROPITIATING TRIBALISTIC ATOMIZATION.
The Aztecs (real name Mexica) were located in Central Mexico, which part of North America. Not South America. And there were numerous civilizations all over Mexico, Central America, and South America. You only hear about the Mexica and Inca so much because they were the ones who encountered the Spanish first.
People that know what another person means and then instead of proceeding with that knowledge, they quibble and make a grand point of making sure that the minor error is pointed out, are...insufferable homosexuals. >DIDN'T YOU MEAN XXX?!?!! HUHHHHHH?! >FELLATES SELF
YES, I KNOW WHAT WAS MEANT, WHICH IS WHY I CORRECTED; NEGLECT OF ERROR PERPETUATES IGNORANCE; NOONE BUT YOU IS QUIBBLING HERE; IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE CORRECTED, DO NOT MAKE MISTAKES.
>Yes, I know what was meant
Thank you for admitting you are a homosexual.
DID YOU MEAN TO USE ALL CAPS?
I THINK IT'S NOT THE NORM!!
IT IMPLIES YOU ARE YELLING.
SEE HOW WORTHLESS THIS COMMENTARY IS?!
It wasn't me and you are a name fag that no one will ever remember.
>Yes, I know what was meant
Thank you for admitting you are a homosexual.
DID YOU MEAN TO USE ALL CAPS?
I THINK IT'S NOT THE NORM!!
IT IMPLIES YOU ARE YELLING.
SEE HOW WORTHLESS THIS COMMENTARY IS?!
It wasn't me and you are a name fag that no one will ever remember.
He's a long-time tripfag on here and other adjacent boards. He's a Mexican (which is why he comes into every thread and screams AMERICA IS NOT SYNONYMOVS WITH VSA") who couldn't even hold a job at McDonald's, and who used to have a philosophy blog that was diet Nietzschean ramblings about how Mexicans are the REAL whites
>Spain
I was in Spain a couple months ago. A local asked me if I prefer Spain or Greece. I said Portugal and he got offended. I didnt understand why, he was clearly Moroccan in origin.
There were urban complexes and vast trading networks in North America, we just don't have the records of them like we do with the Aztecs and Incas since they were extremely badly hurt by the diseases brought by the Europeans and the subsequent demographic collapse.
Canada was a glacial shithole full of ice. USA was probably better. The North American natives and South American natives seem to descend from different people because they look, act, and build differently. I don't really care to look deeper into it though.
Same reasons Africans never did anything.
Resources were so great and easy to get they never had to invent shit and just lived the easy life never developing any technology.
Also, there's a big Mississippian culture site, Cahokia, near the site of St. Louis. May have ruled an empire, archaeology certainly suggests a lot of similarities to other sites in the region.
May also have been tyrannical and turned natives in the region against the very concept of the state (I know Graeber has suggested it, but idk how seriously to take him on this) and definitely collapsed from internal causes before Columbus showed up.
>How come South America was able to produce 2 Indian empires (aztec & Inca)
Depending on how you define an empire, South America did produce arguabily like 2 empires, 4 max, but none of them were the Aztecs (north america duh), these were:
- Inka
- Wari
- Tiwanaku, but it seems to have been more like a religious entity while the prevous two were more militaristic/political ones
- Chimu, an expansionist, centralized and bureaucratic kingdom similar the Inca and Wari but quite smaler in territory, thou it had a dense population compared to its neighbors
The Aztecs (real name Mexica) were located in Central Mexico, which part of North America. Not South America. And there were numerous civilizations all over Mexico, Central America, and South America. You only hear about the Mexica and Inca so much because they were the ones who encountered the Spanish first.
One example I can think of is the Iroquois Confederacy AKA the Haudenosaunee who were located in northeastern North America snd upstate New York. It was a confederation of six Native tribes that formed their own legislature. And it was matriarchal.
But they didnt have a big city or an empire
Most North American tribes simply didn't need one.
Why not?
>or an empire
They were the empire. The Confederacy battled and conquered Algic people constantly. They even fought other Iroquois people, such as the Neutral.
In Upstate NY we have a region called the Adirondacks.
The term is a slur against Algonquians. It means "tree eaters." The Iroquois had primitive agriculture, the Algics did not. So when harsh winters came, the latter were forced to strip bark from the trees and eat it.
They didn't have a big city but they absolutely had an empire. Stretched as far as Kentucky and Illinois, they ethnically cleansed Ohio, besieged Montreal. Were a major power in the American backcountry and the French pissing them off is why New France was never quite the overwhelming power it looked like on paper.
Iroquois ever owning Michigan and Illinois sounds like huge cope to me
Iroquois troops definitely fought and occasionally won battles in both those states, but I agree they never established firm control.
Still, I think it's notable the French and their various allies felt the need to have them renounce the claim in the first place, speaks to their power and ambitions.
Shit created post-euro colonization doesn't count. Too many outside factors at play there.
Iroquois seem way more complex despite not having as ostentatious material culture
Iroquois had more complex and resilient societies, societies were everyone was high iq and independent. Despite being from more primitive societies they went toe to toe with the French British and Americas and were finally sealed by centuries of attrition and unwillingness to adapt. Inca and Mayans fell at the first strike of crisis probably due organization being so top heavy
>And it was matriarchal.
stupid bait is stupid.
The United States of America is geographically, culturally and genetically much closer to the Aztecs than any country in South America is. Mexico is in North America.
And there were many more advanced cultures and empires in the mesoamerican and andean regions than just those 2.
The Mississippian empire
Lasted for 600 years
that wasn't an empire
posting frog
>not one popped up in America
They existed, but they collapsed before Columbus' arrival.
They also didn't build out of stone.
1. THE AZTECS WERE IN THE GEOANTHROPOLOGICAL REGION CALLED «MESOAMERICA»; MESOAMERICA IS IN NORTHAMERICA.
2. SEE ATTACHED IMAGE.
3. THE MEXICA POLITY WAS NOT AN EMPIRE: IT WAS A FEDERATION.
4. THE AMERINDIANS FROM ARIDOAMERICA TO THE ARCTIC CIRCLE NEVER COALESCED INTO GREAT POLITICAL ENTITIES BECAUSE THE CLIMATES ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY TEMPERATE; THE CLIMATES, FROM WHAT IS NOW NORTHERN MEXICO TO WHAT IS NOW NORTHERN CANADA, ARE, EITHER, EXTREMELY ARID & HOT, OR EXTREMELY HUMID & COLD, PROPITIATING TRIBALISTIC ATOMIZATION.
People that know what another person means and then instead of proceeding with that knowledge, they quibble and make a grand point of making sure that the minor error is pointed out, are...insufferable homosexuals.
>DIDN'T YOU MEAN XXX?!?!! HUHHHHHH?!
>FELLATES SELF
YES, I KNOW WHAT WAS MEANT, WHICH IS WHY I CORRECTED; NEGLECT OF ERROR PERPETUATES IGNORANCE; NOONE BUT YOU IS QUIBBLING HERE; IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE CORRECTED, DO NOT MAKE MISTAKES.
>Yes, I know what was meant
Thank you for admitting you are a homosexual.
DID YOU MEAN TO USE ALL CAPS?
I THINK IT'S NOT THE NORM!!
IT IMPLIES YOU ARE YELLING.
SEE HOW WORTHLESS THIS COMMENTARY IS?!
It wasn't me and you are a name fag that no one will ever remember.
He's a long-time tripfag on here and other adjacent boards. He's a Mexican (which is why he comes into every thread and screams AMERICA IS NOT SYNONYMOVS WITH VSA") who couldn't even hold a job at McDonald's, and who used to have a philosophy blog that was diet Nietzschean ramblings about how Mexicans are the REAL whites
He's also an unironic pedo and worships Spain, which is the main thing he does on this board.
>Spain
I was in Spain a couple months ago. A local asked me if I prefer Spain or Greece. I said Portugal and he got offended. I didnt understand why, he was clearly Moroccan in origin.
#baffled
Mexicans are the true aryans though. La Raza Cosmica.
You will never be Spanish you fucking race traitor. Go stare in the mirror until your brain registers your indian phenotype.
Cum genius is likely pure Spaniard. He is a gross incel looking dude but he definitely has Spaniard phenotype.
They did
They were wiped out by a fucking asteroid impact on a glacier that flooded the entire continent
There were urban complexes and vast trading networks in North America, we just don't have the records of them like we do with the Aztecs and Incas since they were extremely badly hurt by the diseases brought by the Europeans and the subsequent demographic collapse.
Canada was a glacial shithole full of ice. USA was probably better. The North American natives and South American natives seem to descend from different people because they look, act, and build differently. I don't really care to look deeper into it though.
Yeah my theory American natives were white adjacent and probably finno urgic by the way of Greenland into st Lawrence
Same reasons Africans never did anything.
Resources were so great and easy to get they never had to invent shit and just lived the easy life never developing any technology.
Mississippian culture was pretty kino tho
Also, there's a big Mississippian culture site, Cahokia, near the site of St. Louis. May have ruled an empire, archaeology certainly suggests a lot of similarities to other sites in the region.
May also have been tyrannical and turned natives in the region against the very concept of the state (I know Graeber has suggested it, but idk how seriously to take him on this) and definitely collapsed from internal causes before Columbus showed up.
>How come South America was able to produce 2 Indian empires (aztec & Inca) but not one popped up in America and Canada?
There was obviously contact between the Mesoamerican Indians and those in N.America.
They had parallel civilizations, what they did less was centralize populations in big metropolis
>How come South America was able to produce 2 Indian empires (aztec & Inca)
Depending on how you define an empire, South America did produce arguabily like 2 empires, 4 max, but none of them were the Aztecs (north america duh), these were:
- Inka
- Wari
- Tiwanaku, but it seems to have been more like a religious entity while the prevous two were more militaristic/political ones
- Chimu, an expansionist, centralized and bureaucratic kingdom similar the Inca and Wari but quite smaler in territory, thou it had a dense population compared to its neighbors
Was Tiwanaku like Jerusalem for Native Andeans?
>but not one popped up in America and Canada?
They didn't need it
why not?
sdeww