Continued on from the Peruvians slaughtered.........
After holding the Inca Atahualpa for months while the ransom for his release was being brought into Cajamarca there were rumors being spread that the Inca was plotting for his rescue and a large force was being assembled in a town some distance away. Pizarro decided to send one of his Captains, de Soto, with a number of cavalry to the town to find out if the rumors were true so to clarify the situation.
While de Soto was away, the perceived threat of the Inca became too great and Pizarro's soldiers and some senior officers became extremely distrustful of the situation and demanded the Inca be killed. There was a general perception that the Incan was so important in controlling the empire that without his rule, the empire would crumble. This turned out to be a fair assessment.
To give his execution some legitimacy, Pizarro staged a mock trial and found Atahualpa guilty of revolting against the Spanish, practicing idolatry and murdering Huáscar, his brother. The actual charges are incredibly laughable when read in retrospect considering the Spanish did not control Peru and the ‘laws’ being applied were from Spain….
Atahualpa was sentenced to execution by burning. At the time this was not a regular method of the Spanish to execute people in their own country and it seems odd that the Conquistadors chose this extremely painful method in Peru. The Inca was particularly horrified by this as the Incas believed that the soul would not be able to go on to the afterlife if the body was burned. Friar Valverde, who had earlier tried to convert Atahualpa, intervened again, telling Atahualpa that if he agreed to convert to Christianity he would convince Pizarro to change the sentence to a more reasonable way of death. Atahualpa agreed to be baptized and was given the name Juan Santos Atahualpa and, in accordance with his request, was strangled instead of being burned.
This entire episode was critical in the history of Peru and the Spanish Conquest. It is also a blight on the Spanish people and Christianity, in that it would take such action for the sake of gold and silver. But, perhaps this is just being human.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Primal Instincts
Although I do not have all the facts of the case I can safely put this story in the 'humans are fucked' box.
No jail for rape of girl, 10
Tony Koch and Padraic Murphy December 10, 2007
NINE males who pleaded guilty last month to gang-raping a 10-year-old girl at the Aurukun Aboriginal community on Cape York have escaped a prison term, with the sentencing judge saying the child victim "probably agreed" to have sex with them.
Cairns-based District Court judge Sarah Bradley ordered that the six teenage juveniles not even have a conviction recorded for the 2005 offence, and that they be placed on a 12-month probation order.
Judge Bradley sentenced three men over the age of consent of 16 - aged 17, 18 and 26 - to six months' imprisonment, with the sentence suspended for 12 months.
What is the basis for this action?
What drives men to do such a thing?
Power?
Control?
Sexual gratification?
Peer pressure?
Psychological disturbance?
All of the above?
What it tells me is that humans have a significant primal instinct that allows them to treat fellow humans with utter distain, hatred, contempt, and loathing.
I have no answer to this but to say that humans are quite clearly animals, just trying to survive on this rock.
The only thing that may put us above the animals is our ability to plan and envisage the future.
The thing that puts us below the animals is that we are one if not the only species that gets pleasures from such activity, including hunting.
No jail for rape of girl, 10
Tony Koch and Padraic Murphy December 10, 2007
NINE males who pleaded guilty last month to gang-raping a 10-year-old girl at the Aurukun Aboriginal community on Cape York have escaped a prison term, with the sentencing judge saying the child victim "probably agreed" to have sex with them.
Cairns-based District Court judge Sarah Bradley ordered that the six teenage juveniles not even have a conviction recorded for the 2005 offence, and that they be placed on a 12-month probation order.
Judge Bradley sentenced three men over the age of consent of 16 - aged 17, 18 and 26 - to six months' imprisonment, with the sentence suspended for 12 months.
What is the basis for this action?
What drives men to do such a thing?
Power?
Control?
Sexual gratification?
Peer pressure?
Psychological disturbance?
All of the above?
What it tells me is that humans have a significant primal instinct that allows them to treat fellow humans with utter distain, hatred, contempt, and loathing.
I have no answer to this but to say that humans are quite clearly animals, just trying to survive on this rock.
The only thing that may put us above the animals is our ability to plan and envisage the future.
The thing that puts us below the animals is that we are one if not the only species that gets pleasures from such activity, including hunting.
Friday, December 7, 2007
What's good is survival
My first couple of posts here have been dedicated to the evils associated with the survival imperative but it's clear that there is also 'good' to come from the basic human instinct as well.
'Good' on the surface anyway.
What are ‘good’ traits, values, virtues, emotions and/or actions?
Selflessness
Forgiveness
Cooperation
Generosity
Altruism
Sympathy
Empathy
Charity
Friendship
Love
The list goes on………………………….
While the vast majority will look at people who display these characteristics with great respect and admiration, they only look at a veneer of the true person. What drives people to display the above emotions and traits? Most will not have even considered this in any great detail. Most just assume a person is ‘good’ because that is their personality.
People are ‘good’ people because that is their inner nature…….
However, by only scratching the surface of this superficial façade it is easy to see that the true motivation for all ‘good’ action is, in the end, a means to satisfy the basic human survival imperative.
Let me take one example, love.
What is the point of love? Why do humans have this emotion? Why have the chemicals and deeply ingrained sociopsychocultural drives made us have this feeling of ‘love’.
Most, I dare say, consider this to be just a natural feeling we get when we really like someone. A state of mind where you give all to another human, or totally open your being to another that makes you feel naked and vulnerable. These are all superficial concepts that only just scrape the surface of what ‘love’ is.
‘Love’ is nothing more than a means by which humans are drawn to each other for the purpose of copulation. ‘Love’ holds us together long enough that we may have children, care for them, and allow them to go on their path to survival and have their own children that will allow them to survive. Pure and simple. Anyone who believes otherwise is destined for a failed and/or painful relationship. It is only by fully understanding this truth that individuals who are ‘in love’ can engineer their relationship to ensure that the love lasts for as long as possible in order to maintain the happiness of the moment.
You can discuss each of the other ‘virtues’ I listed above in the same manner and come to the same conclusion.
All any of us what to do is ultimately survive.
Realising the basic instinct of the human being that drives our every action can be life defining.
'Good' on the surface anyway.
What are ‘good’ traits, values, virtues, emotions and/or actions?
Selflessness
Forgiveness
Cooperation
Generosity
Altruism
Sympathy
Empathy
Charity
Friendship
Love
The list goes on………………………….
While the vast majority will look at people who display these characteristics with great respect and admiration, they only look at a veneer of the true person. What drives people to display the above emotions and traits? Most will not have even considered this in any great detail. Most just assume a person is ‘good’ because that is their personality.
People are ‘good’ people because that is their inner nature…….
However, by only scratching the surface of this superficial façade it is easy to see that the true motivation for all ‘good’ action is, in the end, a means to satisfy the basic human survival imperative.
Let me take one example, love.
What is the point of love? Why do humans have this emotion? Why have the chemicals and deeply ingrained sociopsychocultural drives made us have this feeling of ‘love’.
Most, I dare say, consider this to be just a natural feeling we get when we really like someone. A state of mind where you give all to another human, or totally open your being to another that makes you feel naked and vulnerable. These are all superficial concepts that only just scrape the surface of what ‘love’ is.
‘Love’ is nothing more than a means by which humans are drawn to each other for the purpose of copulation. ‘Love’ holds us together long enough that we may have children, care for them, and allow them to go on their path to survival and have their own children that will allow them to survive. Pure and simple. Anyone who believes otherwise is destined for a failed and/or painful relationship. It is only by fully understanding this truth that individuals who are ‘in love’ can engineer their relationship to ensure that the love lasts for as long as possible in order to maintain the happiness of the moment.
You can discuss each of the other ‘virtues’ I listed above in the same manner and come to the same conclusion.
All any of us what to do is ultimately survive.
Realising the basic instinct of the human being that drives our every action can be life defining.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Peruvians slaughtered
In 1532 the invading Spaniards led by Francisco Pizarro had made it to the town of Cajamarca in what is now northern Peru, and were making their way south in search of the grand riches that they assumed were in the country. Dramatically outnumbered Pizarro could not take the entire country by force and knew that once his real intentions were clear to the Incas his company would not survive long.
Pizarro had lured the Inca King, Atahualpa, to the town of Cajamarca, and the Inca had brought around 80,000 of his army, armed with stone clubs and spears. The Spaniards numbered about 170, but had about 60 horses, steal, and guns. At this point the Incan army had never seen a horse, or a gun.
Not truly understanding the Spaniards intentions and assuming his numbers to be too great, Atahualpa made the fatal mistake of trusting Pizarro's request to meet in the town and he left the bulk of his armed forces outside the city. The Spaniards set their ambush around the main plaza and laid in wait for the order to attack.
The massacre was initiated after Franciscan friar Vincente de Valverde approached Atahualpa and ordered him to renounce his pagan religion and accept Catholicism as faith and Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor as sovereign. The Inca was rightly insulted by this and refused, which precipitated the onslaught against the unarmed Indians.
The initial target of the Spanish was the Inca's direct protection and the nobles surrounding him. Once they were killed, the Indians had no leadership and the only thing they could think to do was run. Even after they had captured the Inca, and killed all within the plaza, the Spanish chased the unarmed down to butcher as many as they could.
The total number killed ranged between 2000 and 20000, so the answer is somewhere in the middle. No Spanish were killed.
The aim?
Ultimately, power.
The Spanish were colonising the New World with the aim of converting the indigenous to their faith, to pillage the new regions they captured, and to seek fortune for themselves.
This battle was just the start of the destruction of the Incan Empire, for the sake of Spanish power, wealth, and Catholicism.
The Incans, of course, were no golden children. They established their empire in pretty much the same way.
Seems whenever humans come into contact, in any sense, the end result is conflict.
Pizarro had lured the Inca King, Atahualpa, to the town of Cajamarca, and the Inca had brought around 80,000 of his army, armed with stone clubs and spears. The Spaniards numbered about 170, but had about 60 horses, steal, and guns. At this point the Incan army had never seen a horse, or a gun.
Not truly understanding the Spaniards intentions and assuming his numbers to be too great, Atahualpa made the fatal mistake of trusting Pizarro's request to meet in the town and he left the bulk of his armed forces outside the city. The Spaniards set their ambush around the main plaza and laid in wait for the order to attack.
The massacre was initiated after Franciscan friar Vincente de Valverde approached Atahualpa and ordered him to renounce his pagan religion and accept Catholicism as faith and Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor as sovereign. The Inca was rightly insulted by this and refused, which precipitated the onslaught against the unarmed Indians.
The initial target of the Spanish was the Inca's direct protection and the nobles surrounding him. Once they were killed, the Indians had no leadership and the only thing they could think to do was run. Even after they had captured the Inca, and killed all within the plaza, the Spanish chased the unarmed down to butcher as many as they could.
The total number killed ranged between 2000 and 20000, so the answer is somewhere in the middle. No Spanish were killed.
The aim?
Ultimately, power.
The Spanish were colonising the New World with the aim of converting the indigenous to their faith, to pillage the new regions they captured, and to seek fortune for themselves.
This battle was just the start of the destruction of the Incan Empire, for the sake of Spanish power, wealth, and Catholicism.
The Incans, of course, were no golden children. They established their empire in pretty much the same way.
Seems whenever humans come into contact, in any sense, the end result is conflict.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
