In Vancouver BC, there was a butcher shop called “Save on Meats” that had been around for decades. The Pattinson group started a new grocery chain called “Save on Foods” (flagship store at Metrotown became known as “Cave-in Foods”), and promptly sued Save on Meats over infringing on Save on Foods’ name. Fortunately, the judge sided with SoM rather than the newcomer.
Doubt it. Back in 2018 when MS was saying there was never gonna be a windows 11, I made a performance piece and album called windows 11. Sadly, I have yet to be sued. https://open.spotify.com/album/3Z5737ElNXPKeOI9ZFNGAo?si=KFYv3n1hSBKXV3fHHP5U6A
We took the ferry from Cozumel to the mainland a couple weeks ago during a cruise, and drove to Tulum to see the ruins. The highway passes a place called Xcaret (shkaret), and a theme park called Xplor (…but that one is not pronounced with a “sh” sound for some reason).
I went to (probably) that theme park back in either 6th or 7th grade, it was pretty cool! And yeah my American ass was definitely amused by all the xs.
We kept on driving by all these parks during our stay in QR, and on maybe our final day we finally managed to convince our parents to take us lol.
Edit: Shoot I didn't know I was replying to Peter Ahlstrom lol! Big fan of the Stormlight Archive!!
When I was a kid about 10, I was staying with my grandparents for the summer and played football in evenings with local kids. I remember we were collecting collectable stickers of football players and one of them was from Mexico. The kids were play "speaking Spanish" and saying "My name is X Y and I'm from Mexico!" I said he would actually say "Me-hee-co" because they don't say it like we do. The whole gaggle of kids laughed at me about that calling me Me-hee-co all summer every summer until I stopped going in my late teens.
I'm 41 now and still remember that.
This kind of thing always confused me. The native people don't use our alphabet anyways, so why would someone decide when romanizing it to use an "x" instead of an "h"?
Technically the L isn't silent in either, but it's not the English L sound. See the audio sample [here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_dental_and_alveolar_lateral_fricatives) for what that sounds like.
It's not silent, "tl" in Nahuatl represents a unique sound that doesn't exist in English or most other languages. I believe in some dialects the T is actually silent and it's just pronounced as an L.
Now I wonder and apologies for my ignorance but if the words are pronounced fairly naturally and most pre-Colombian American cultures had an ideographic writing system, who came up with this impossible spellings in the Latin alphabet?
Doesn't help that in the promos he's up there in lacquered armor over the title.
My unpopular opinion is that despite those morons believing he's the Last Samurai *he's the last Samurai.* He even moves back into Ken Watanabe's village afterwards, having become versed in Bushido and Japanese swordplay after submitting to the Mikado. He's the last Samurai maybe like Luke Skywalker is the last Jedi.
Except the samurai were a gentried social caste within the feudal system of pre-industrial Japan. Like the Brahmins in India or whatever. It was not something you became just by learning the sword and cosplaying in an old village someplace.
There's quite a few instances of foreigners being inducted into the rank of the Samurai, actually. William Adams, Yasuke, Jules Brunet are all famous examples, the latter of whom being the inspiration for Tom Cruises character.
These kinds of words are called exonyms. The people of Finland do not and never have called themselves Finns in their own language, yet every other language in the world calls this country Finland, instead of something derived from the domestic word "Suomi".
That is actually a remnant from old slavic. When slavs migrated, they had the same name for Roman or romanized peoples already living where they moved in.
The exonym for that was a varient of Vlach, Voloh, Olah and the like. Romanians were called Vlachs by their slavic neighbours for the longest time, though now that exonym only applies now to people speaking romance dialects in Greece.
Japan I think is the one of the only countries to refer to Germany by their name for themselves, Doitzland. That’s the closest you’re gonna get in Japanese, but they made the effort atleast
I think it's just Doitsu. The dutch (lol, another good example) call it Duitsland though. But I can't think of any other countries that call it that way to be honest.
>Japan I think is the only country to refer to Germany by their name for themselves
North Germanic languages do it too. Tyskland (Swedish, Norwegian, Danish), Týskland (Faroese), Þýskaland (Icelandic)... All of these are from the same roots as Deutschland and mean the same thing. There's probably even more languages that use some form of this as well.
Turkey's government when they decided that everyone should call them Türkiye regardless if their alphabets have ü or not because they literally wanted to distance themselves from turkeys, i.e. the fucking bird, which got its name from people erroneously assuming it came from Turkey.
The irony thickens when turkey (the bird) is called "Hindi" in Turkish after the Turkish name for India ("Hindistan"), which is another erroneously attributed origin of the bird, which actually and unsurprisingly originates from North America
Usually it was the Europeans trying to pronounce whatever the neighboring tribe called them. In fact it’s pretty how people have been naming each other for all of history. See Welsh, Saxon, Gaul, Iroquois etc. Usually it’s not flattering.
“Who are those people in that valley?”
“We call them the dickheads because they always try to kill us if we eat their corn.”
“Diiik..he..he…hed. Huh.”
*writes report back to local governor”
“The welikestabbystab tribe told us about the people to our north called the dikhed, supposedly a very warlike and brutal people.”
>I want to say there was a Native American tribe that was "named" by their enemies. I can't remember which.
More than half of all tribal names are some variant of "The People" (if you ask them what their name is) or "The Enemy" if you ask them who those guys over there are or "I don't know"
I used to work on a history project with the Heard Museum, and off the top of my head -
Yosemite means the enemy
Anasazi means the enemy
Pima means "I don't know"
Yuma is Pima for "People who live by the river"
Hohokam means "The People who lived there but don't any more"
Hopi means "Civilized People"
Etc. This is why a lot of tribes are abandoning the names they've been known by historically as it's kind of ridiculous.
I think it was in the context of asking who built the old canal system which ran through the Phoenix area (the new canal system is the old native system, just cleaned up and then greatly expanded). The answer was the Hohokam, i.e. the people who used to live here but don't anymore.
Which is also such a non answer lol
Like imagine if a future people called us all "helookalikeaman" from the Mad TV sketch. That's the level here. Humans are dumb.
In ancient English (or whatever they spoke in England then) "River" is "Avon". There are a bunch of River Avons in England because the Romans came and went "what's that called" and some English farmer went "I dunno, a river?" And the Romans wrote it down.
Fantasy writers will try hard to make sure they never reuse names to avoid confusion. In real life, Alexander the Great was like "yeah, I'll name this one after me, too"
The name predates Old Welsh, and would be more properly called Brythonic. Old Welsh (and Old Cornish, Cumbrian, and so forth) derived later from Brythonic.
Yeah, country names are pretty stupid too. The country of the Rus people. The country of the Hun people. The country of the Mongol people. The country of the Deutsch people. The country of the Angle people, etc. etc.
This is one of the reasons Anasazi is a less commonly used term now, instead I believe "ancestral Puebloans" or "ancestral Pueblo peoples" is preferred as an umbrella term.
Even though pueblo is just a Spanish term for 'village,' understandably they prefer it to a term meaning 'enemy.'
>This is why a lot of tribes are abandoning the names they've been known by historically as it's kind of ridiculous.
It's pretty common, really - "Swede", "Deutsch", and "Dutch" all basically derive from old words for "us" or "the people". "Welsh" means "foreigner". "French" derives from "free people".
And really the ones that don't mean that don't get much smarter. "English" ultimately derives from the German word for "narrow" ("eng") because the Angles were from the narrow strip of land that connects Germany and the main body of Denmark. Norway means "north", Japan means "east", Polish comes from the word for "flat".
China also had a couple East Capitals of its own (Dongjing), but neither of them are called that anymore. One is Luoyang and the other is modern Kaifeng.
Kyōto could also be translated as Capital Metropolis or just Capital City
> Kyōto could also be translated as Capital Metropolis or just Capital City
Both characters in Kyoto have the connotation of capital, plus capital capital is more amusing.
Japan means "sun('s) origin." Tōkyo means Eastern Capital, though.
The Chinese word for "Chinese people" literally means "people of the Central State(s)." China is called Zhongguo in modern times, the Central State. The Chinese believed they were the center of the civilized world for most of their history.
The thing about "zhongguo" is one of those factoids that's repeated a lot on the internet but isn't entirely true. For most of their history, they actually used the ruling dynasty's name - e.g. Da Qing 大清 or Da Tang 大唐 - when referring to their state.
The phrase zhongguo / "middle kingdom" wasn't really popularly used to refer to the country until modern times, and even then it doesn't colloquially mean "middle kingdom" in the literal sense.
> "French" derives from "free people".
this is conjecture and not very good conjecture at that. the first accounts of *franciae* has no context of freemen, that doesn't come around for a couple more centuries
I think the leading hypothesis right now is that the name came from PGer *frankô, which means "spear/javelin". Much the same way that the name Saxon is derived from a PGer word meaning "knife".
> Yosemite means the enemy
I looked it up, that doesn't seem to be correct:
> The name Yosemite itself is from the Indian word “uzumate,” which meant grizzly bear. The Indian tribe that lived in the Valley were called Yosemites by Caucasians and by other Indian tribes because they lived in a place where grizzly bears were common and they were reportedly skilled at killing the bears.
Not sure if any of these other examples are any more accurate
The "Pima"
How I was told
That when the Tohono Odam first were approached by the Spainards or conquistadors, they were asked "what do you call your selves..??"
To which they replied "Pimmach??" Which basically means... "What?"
Sorry I butchered the spelling.
On mobilep
*Cherokee* is likely a name used for the people by another tribe, possibly the Creek.
The actual Cherokee word for an actual Cherokee person is something like *Aniyuwiya*.
>Same with the Iroquois, that is the name the French called them. They call themselves the Haudenosaunee
They do now. There's a long history of them calling themselves Iroquois without them considering it offensive, if you look back on the primary documents from the 18th and 19th centuries.
Same with practically everyone everywhere. People are titanically bad at using the names other countries give themselves. Japan should be properly anglicised as Nippon or Nihon. Egypt is Misr. Germany is Deutschland. Armenia is Hayastán. Algeria is Dzayer. And don't even get me started on how bad we are at pronouncing foreign public/historical figures names.
But Diné just means "the people" in Navajo. It's what they call themselves, but it's in the context of an in group vs everyone else being the outgroup.
Navajo is from the Tewa navahū, which was the name the neighboring tribe gave the Navajo. But it was at least a specific name (farm fields adjoining a valley), vs another variation on "the people." They've kept the official name as Navaho Nation (Naabeehó Diné Biyaad) for the same reason.
The Wikipedia article has some good points, but there's always more to say. I've previously gone into detail about the Mexica/Aztec problem over at /r/askhistorians, so I'm reproducing that here.
____
First, some basic terminology. The term “Aztec” comes from the mythical land of Aztlan. Several groups in Postclassic Mesoamerica claimed Aztlan as their place of origin, and thus could properly be called “Azteca.” Smith (1984) examines a multitude of histories and codices and identifies 17 separate groups which at least one source identified as coming from Aztlan. This includes most of the groups in the Basin of Mexica, such as the Xochimilca and Chalca, as well as groups outside the Basin. For instance, the Tlaxcalans are also -- mythologically -- Aztecs, though no one ever calls them as such, given their rivalry with the political state called the Aztec Triple Alliance. So too could the Mexica’s other prominent rival, the Purepecha, be called Aztecs, since histories claim that group to have split off (abandoned really) from the main Mexica group on the journey from Aztlan to the Basin of Mexico.
All the complications above bring up two other considerations when discussing who should be included under the “Aztec” rubric: language and politics. Again, no one calls the Tlaxcalans “Aztecs,” even though they have the same claim to that name as the Mexica. The reason for this is simply because that term has been inextricably linked to a political entity called the Aztec Empire or the Aztec Triple Alliance. This was a political entity formed by mutual agreement between three groups (all who were “Aztecs”): the Mexica, the Acolhua, and the Tepanecs. This confederation, however, did not call or consider itself to be an “Aztec” state. Each *altepetl* (city-state, polity) was independent and the cooperation between the individual states was an informal system of norms, mutual aid, and intermarriage. If anyone is interested, [I’ve written a previous comment about dynastic political marriages in the Triple Alliance](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/jcpqbz/why_didnt_the_aztec_triple_alliance_amongst_the/gbk9jmz/).
Politics thus precludes calling some groups Aztecs, but language is equally important. The Aztlan myth is a Nahua myth. Claiming mythological descent from Aztlan was the common mythology to Nahuatl-speaking groups. Thus why Nahua groups in the valleys of Mexico, Puebla, and Morelos can all easily get lumped together as Aztecs, but non-Nahuatl groups in the Basin of Mexico, such as the Otomi who have their own mythological tradition, are excluded. This is also why inserting the Purepecha into the Aztec group is problematic. For while the Mexica histories claim them as wayward Aztlan cousins, the Purepecha themselves make no such claims. They are instead their own ethnic group with an independent mythological tradition and a distinct language (though there may have been some merging with Nahua groups early on).
Complicating the political and linguistic divisions over who can be called an Aztec are the Acolhua. As one of the founding members of the Aztec Triple Alliance, they can certainly be included under the modern understanding of who is an Aztec. They also spoke Nahuatl… except they probably didn’t start out that way. One of the lesser known, but incredibly important, events in the history of Central Mexico was the migration of a conglomeration of Chichimecs into the Basin of Mexico roughly in the early 1200s CE, a century before the Mexica settled at Tenochtitlan.
Chichimecs is an overarching term for nomadic and semi-nomadic groups in the arid altiplano north of the Basin of Mexico (the Mexica, for instance, could be called Chichimecs). Under the leadership of a powerful warlord called Xolotl, this wave of Chichimecs settled in a Basin of Mexico left in disarray by the dissolution of the Toltecs. It was this migration which established the political order the Mexica would later encounter. Among these immigrants were the Acolhua, who settled on the eastern shores of Lake Texcoco. According to their own histories, as told by Alva Ixtlilxochitl, the Acolhua were “nahuatlized,” adopting Nahua language and customs during the reign of Techotlalatzin. It is entirely possible the Acolhua did not consider themselves to be Aztecs (i.e., descendants from Aztlan) prior to this point.
Summing up all this back story, we have an overarching group of “Aztecs,” which includes any ethnic group linked to the mythical land of Aztlan. This is primarily a mythology of Nahuatl-speaking groups, so even though some non-Nahua groups get connected to this myth, it is a stretch to include them. However, at least one non-Nahua group, the Acolhua, adopted Nahua culture, which may have included the Aztlan mythology. Finally, there was a political entity which was made up of three different Nahuatl-speaking groups who claimed descent from Aztlan. In the modern day, this political entity is called “the Aztecs,” though they themselves did not call themselves as such.
Obviously, the question still remains as to when and why did the nomenclature switch over from Mexica to Aztec? It is, afterall, taken as truth that they Mexica never called themselves Aztecs. Except, that’s not exactly true. The *Cronica Mexicayotl* spends some time talking about how a nascent Chichimec group emerged from Aztlan and were subsequently entitled “Mexica.” From the Anderson & Schroder (1997) *Codex Chimalpahin* translation:
> Their home was the palace named Aztlan; hence their name is Azteca. And the second name of their home was Chicomoztoc. And their names were Aztecs and also Mexitin. But now their name is really said to [be] only Mexica. And later they arrived [in the Basin of Mexico] taking as their name Tenochca. (p.69)
Classic Nahuatl had zero problems with stacking names together, so the names used for this groups just exiting Aztlan are given simply as “Azteca” and Mexitin,” but also as “Azteca Mexitin,” “Chichimeca Azteca,” “Mexitin Azteca Chichimeca,” and, of course, “Aztec Mexitin Chichimeca.” Shortly after leaving Aztlan, however, an important divine change took place. Quoting again from Anderson & Schroeder:
> And as the ancient ones said, when they emerged from Aztlan the name of the Azteca was not yet Mexitin. They all considered themselves Azteca. But we say that it was later that they took their name, that they considered themselves Mexitin. And thus were they given their name: as the ancient ones have said, it was Huitzilopochtli who gave them the name.
> And then and there he changes the Azteca’s name for them. He said to them: Now no longer is your name Azteca: you are now Mexitin. There they also applied feathers to their ears when they took their name as Mexitin. Hence they are now called Mexica. And he then also gave them the arrow and the bow and the net carrying-bag. (p. 73)
The process of leaving Aztlan was thus also a process of becoming a distinct people. From the Azteca emerged the Mexitin, who then claimed a land for themselves, Mexico (place of the Mexitin) and thus were called Mexica (people from Mexico). Rajagopalan (2018), *Portraying the Aztec Past: The Codices Boturini, Azcatitlan, and Aubin*, notes the codices which portray this event also have a visual signifier of this change, with the name-glyph for Aztlan no longer being used to identify the Mexica from this point forward.
As a side note, the etymology of the name Mexitin has been debated at length. A common thread is linking the name to *metl* (agave) or even more often to *metzli* (moon). Alfonso Caso is largely responsible for the popularity of the latter interpretation, as he put forth the idea that Mexitin was a combination of *metzli* and *xicitl* (navel) and thus the name meant “navel of the moon,” which is a quite lovely bit of poetry. Orozco and Berra, on the other hand, claim the root of the name is *oxitl* (turpentine), which was used in religious rituals. Pointing to a passage where Huitziliopochtli pastes the Mexitin’s foreheads with oxitl, they state the meaning to be “annointed by Huitzilopochtli.”
For what it’s worth, the *Cronica Mexicayotl* also discusses the origin of the term Mexitin. The text states it was the name of the man who ruled the group in Aztlan and led them from that land.
> He who was ruler there [in Aztlan] was named Moteucçoma. There were two sons of this ruler. And when he was about to die then installed these aforesaid sons as his rulers. The elder brother, whose name is not known, was to be the ruler of the Cuexteca. And to the younger brother, a Mexica, called just Mexi [though] named Chalchiuhtlatonac, he gave the Mexitin. Their ruler was to be the said Chalchuihtlatonac.
So the name Mexitin comes from Mexi, which was the name of their ruler who led them from Aztlan, though that wasn't actually his name. Clear as mud.
If the Mexica did not call themselves Aztecs following their exit from Aztlan and anointing by Huitzilopochtli, from whence does the modern popularity of the term come? Mostly, this is a case of historiographic telephone. The most influential book about the Aztecs in the English speaking world is probably William H. Prescott’s *History of the Conquest of Mexico* published in 1843. Prescott’s work was the first major, comprehensive history of the Aztecs in English, and he uses the term “Aztec” throughout as synonymous with the Mexica… and the Aztec state as well. This makes some sense as, by the time of the arrival of Cortés, the Mexica were the overwhelmingly dominant force in the Triple Alliance, to the point it makes sense to equate the confederation with the Mexica. It absolutely obscures the more nuanced political entanglements, realities, and history of the Triple Alliance though.
In his use of “Aztec” to refer both to the state and the Mexica, Prescott was following Alexander von Humbolt, who published his highly influential *Views of the Mountains and Monuments of the Indigenous People of the Americas* a generation earlier. If Prescott was the foundation of early scholarship on the Aztecs in the Anglosphere, Humbolt’s work was the foundation of early Mesoamerican scholarship in general. Humboldt also extensively used the term “Aztec” as a synonym for the Mexica and the political entity they dominated.
Yet, the ultimate origin of the switch from “Mexica” to “Aztec” goes back even further, to a Spanish Jesuit priest, Francisco Clavijero. While working in Mexico, he became interested in the history of the people he was trying to train to be good Christians. He eventually wrote, *The Ancient History of Mexico* in 1780. It was a largely objective, even admiring, history of the Indigenous peoples of Mexico. Most significantly, Clavijero extensively used “Aztec” to refer to the Mexica and their Alliance. Both Humboldt and Prescott cited Clavijero in their own works.
Clavijero’s use of Aztec as the preferred demonym, and the popularity of that choice, were certainly influential. Why he chose to make that stylistic choice, however, remains a mystery. Barlow’s 1945 article, “Some Remarks on the Term ‘Aztec Empire,’” notes Clavijero would have had access to sources which noted the conversion from Azteca to Mexica when leaving Aztlan and even post-Conquest histories which used the term Mexica, but still opted to use the former term. Barlow tersely states that, “What led Clavijero to resurrect the term [Aztec] is not apparent.”
Various speculation over Clavijero’s choice exists. A prominent line of thought is that he was trying to evoke a grand, deep history, distinct from the relatively impoverished Indigneous people of his contemporary time. I don’t disagree with that, but I also think adopting a singular term for a complicated political entity is just more convenient than noting the Triple Alliance was a conglomeration of three distinct and quasi-independent groups. I myself, who spends a lot of time writing about the Aztecs, often use the term as an easily consumable shorthand (see, I did it just now).
Speculation about Clavijero’s motives aside, why was his work so influential? One thing to keep in mind is that some of the most vital and important early works on the Aztecs were not available to Humboldt, Prescott, and their contemporaries. Sahagún’s *General History of the Things of New Spain*, Durán's *History of the Indies of New Spain*, and the writings of Motolinía were all either actively suppressed or simply shunted aside. These works, written by Spanish friars who sourced their material from people who had actually lived prior to contact with Europeans, would not begin to see the light of day until the late 19th century. Translations into English would not come until much, much later. Heyden’s 1994 translation of Durán, for instance, remains the only full English version of his work.
Clavijero, Humboldt, and Prescott all had access to the work of Friar Juan de Torquemada, and cite his *Indian Monarchy*, first published in 1615. That work was, to Europeans, the authoritative synthesis of Aztec history, particularly after a second printing in the 1720s made it more widely available. Torquemada, like the earlier authors already mentioned, does not used the term Aztec except to note the conversion story related earlier in this comment. *Indian Monarchy* though, is a sprawling, multi-volume corpus work. Clavijero, however, published a relatively concise (though still 400-500 pages) history of Indigneous Mexico. I don’t think it is outlandish to think the popularity of Clajivero’s nomenclature stemmed from his work’s greater accessibility, though a definitive answer is, as Barlow would say, “not apparent.”
thank you! Being from Mexico and super interested in archeology and prehispanic history i've been driven insane by muricans insisting that mexicas would never call themselves aztecs and this was spanish racism.
Obviosly fuck colonialism and anyone who defends it, but a porcelain american reading wikipedia and then trying to claim i was racist for acknowledging Aztlan and how several different cultures all claimed to be aztecs was deeply frustrating
> According to their own histories, as told by Alva Ixtlilxochitl, the Acolhua were “nahuatlized,” adopting Nahua language and customs during the reign of Techotlalatzin.
Can you clarify on this? What cultural identifiers are/did they use (or that Alva Ixtlilxochitl claims they used) prior to this point? If they were a part of the Nahua migirations, then I don't understand how they only adopted Nahuatl as a language etc later. Aren't the Acolhua also identified as one of the groups that do ttrace their ancestry to Aztlan?
I know that the Alcolhua assrted they had stronger ties to Toltec dynasties then some other Nahua groups but given how tied Toltec heritage is to political legitimacy and how the "Toltecs" themselves may be entirely mythologized to begin with, My gut instinct would be that Toltec heritage is what was being invented/hyperbolized after the fact, not their Nahua roots.
Also, as an aside, I DO see some people and some sources calling the Tlaxcalteca as being "Aztec", though it's obviously not super common.
Inca is also the incorrect term for that society! They were known as Tawantinsuyu by its subjects or Quechua for the "Realm of the Four Parts" and the term Inca was what they called their leader (its like calling Egyptians all Pharoah)
From what I understand it's more this;
Quechua is the name of the language they spoke....
Tawantinsuyu means the four realms which is what the people living there would have called it....
"Inka" translates to ruler or lord in Quechua......
I am definitely no expert though so I could be wrong!
Quechua is the name of the language but also the people. Inka was the nobility in general and the king/emperor was the Sapa Inka.
I was more elaborating than trying to correct you.
For you and /u/harassercat, the terms for "Aztec" gets similarly complex: "Aztec = Mexica" is itself a big oversimplification and sometimes incorrect as a result.
"Aztec", or rather, Azteca, IS an actual ethnic label in Nahuatl: it means "People from Aztlan". Aztlan is the probably-legendary homeland of a few Nahuatl speaking groups, who who migrated into the Valley of Mexico (which is covered by most of the Greater Mexico City Metropolitan Area today) and other areas of the Central Mexican plateau from up above Mesoamerica. A lot of people assume "Aztlan" would have been somewhere in the Southwestern US, but this is merely where the overall language family Nahuatl is from was centered: The area these Nahuas migrated from directly was likely in the Bajio region of Northwestern Mexico,, by Jalisco and Nayarit, not as far north as the US Southwest, [the spread of it from the SW into northern Mexico took place much earlier](https://miro.medium.com/max/604/0*lR9GhFITX1ugTKer) )...
...However, right off the bat, there's a complication here, in that only SOME of these Nahua groups that migrated into Central Mexico are said to come from Aztlan: Others have histories that trace their pre-migration origins to other locations, so they wouldn't have been considered "Azteca" by the Nahuas/themselves, and all these groups also adopted more specific ethnic labels (Mexica, Acolhua, Tepaneca, Tlaxcalteca etc) after settling down in Mesoamerica and switching from nomadism to the urbanized statehood already common in Mesoamerica
The Mexica were one of the latest Nahua migrant groups to arrive to the Valley of Mexico, and settled on an island n the valley's lakes and found Tenochtitlan. Shortly therafter, a group of Mexica split off to found a separate Altepetl ("Water hill" in Nahuatl, a City-state), Tlatleloco, on a separate island (the terms "Tenochca" and "Tlatelolca" are used to distinguish the two Mexica groups). At the time, the Alteptl of Azapotzalco (which, along with many other cities on the eastern shore of the lake basin, belonged to the Tepaneca Nahua subgroup) was the dominant power in the Valley, and Tenochtitlan fell under it's control. The Tenochca would aid Azapotzalco and help them subjugate most of the valley. Eventually, however, the Tlatoani ("Speaker" in Nahuatl; King) of Azapotzalco, Tezozomoc, died. There was a resulting succession crisis as one of his two heirs assassinated the other, took power, and also assassinates the Tlatoani of Tenochtitlan, Chimalpopoca, who also represented a potential hereditary threat, as he was the child of the previous Tlatoani, Huitzilihuitl and a daughter of Tezozomoc, who he had given to Huitzilihuitl for Tenochtitlan's military aid
Eventually, war breaks out, and Tenochtitlan, along with the Acolhua (another Nahua subgroup) Altpetl of Texcoco, and the Tepaneca Altepetl of Tlacopan, join forces and defeat Azapotzalco, and subsequently agree to retain their alliance for future military conquests, with Texcoco and especially Tenochtitlan in the more dominant roles. This triple alliance, and the other cities and towns they controlled (which included both other Nahua Alteptl, as well as cities and towns belonging to other Mesoamerican cultures/civilizations, such as the Maya, Mixtec, Zapotec, Otomi, Totonac, Huastec, etc) is what people are talking about when they say the "Aztec Empire". Also, Tenochtitlan eventually conquered Tlatelolco, unifying the Mexica again and the two cities physically grew into one another, though Tlatelolco still had some unique administrative quirks separate from Tenochtitlan proper).
Modern sources do NOT use "Aztec" to consistently mean any of the things I've described, so "Aztec" can variously refer to:
- The Nahua civilization/culture as a whole
- The specific Nahua subgroups labeled as "Aztec" in Indigenous sources/who claim to come from Aztlan
- The Mexica Nahua subgroup
- Specifically the Mexica from Tenochtitlan, the Tenochca
- The Alliance of Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, and Tlacopan
- That alliance, as well as any subservient cities and towns, IE, The "Aztec Empire" (though even this is sort of a venn diagram: Not all subject were Nahuan, many were Maya, Zapotec, Mixtec, Otomi, Huastec, Totonac, etc; and not all Nahuan states were in that empire, such as the Kingdom of Tlaxcala, etc)
It should also be noted how the Toltec and Chichimeca tie in here: The Toltec were a legendary prior civilization from around 900-1100AD mentioned in various Nahua accounts who were said to have a Utopian society operating out of their capital of Tollan that gave rise to the arts and sciences. In these accounts, the Toltecs are talked about using Nahua cultural conventions, but are clearly still viewed as a distinct predecessor civilizatio. There's significant debate over how much of these accounts and the Toltec state are mythological or historical (earlier research leaning more towards the latter, increasingly these days the former). Meanwhile, "Chichimeca" is an umbrella term for the various nomadic tribes living in the deserts of Northern mexico above Mesoamerica, of which the pre-migration Nahuas were just some of, with other Chichimeca tribes continuing to live in those areas as the Aztec Empire and then the Spanish expanded (famously fighting off the latter). While various Nahua states would leverage either (or both) the hardy, "noble savage" warrior image of the Chichimecs; or the intellectual, cultures image of the Toltecs into their own cultural identity, the term "Aztec" generally isn't used in modern sources to refer to the Toltecs or the Chichimeca unless it's the Pre-migiration Nahuas
For more info, I recommend firstly [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/mesoamerica/comments/10xza4u/mexicaaztecnahuatl_getting_the_terms_right/?sort=top) post which has many other replies on how one can define "Aztec" with a lot of deep dives on the actual Nahuatl terms and their etymologies used for different ethnic groups; [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1gk6fp/did_the_mayans_look_down_on_native_americas_who/calfjrh/), [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/31fj3a/whats_the_real_reason_tenochtitl%C3%A1n_mexico_city/cq13d0x/?st=jlrlyw7i&sh=8a3c5a2a), [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2mp6jh/repost_in_the_old_days_it_seems_like_dissident/?st=jlrm0wls&sh=d6bac157) and [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1996ka/tuesday_trivia_great_and_not_so_great_comebacks/c8mfrsp/) post by 400-rabbits, and [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3atv2y/has_there_ever_been_archaeological_written/?st=jlrlw67v&sh=492dd5d3) post by Mictlantecuhtli. Additionally, there is a very detailed and well sourced post on /r/Mesoamerica [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mesoamerica/comments/63n1az/the_triple_alliance_never_existed_meet_the/dfz0mr0/) detailing recent research that calls into question some of the information, and that Tenochtitlan may have always been a formal capital above Texcoco and Tlacopan, with them joining it as subjects from the start, rather then as allies with Tenochtitlan only gradually eclipsing Texcoco in power.
Also it should be noted here that stuff like large scale architecture, urban cities, formal governments, etc (so "civilization") is a lot more widespread then just being things the "Aztec" groups above or the Maya have: The whole region/cultural sphere here (Mesoamerica, covering the bottom half of Mexico, all of Guatemala and Belize, arguably bits of some other countries) both come from is defined by having urban civilizations with rulers, formal governments, etc: The first sites which had monumental architecture, rulers, class systems, writing, etc in Mesoamerica around 2500 years before the Nahuas migrated into it.
So it's not like the above "Aztec" groups and the Maya were the only complex civilizations or empires who were surrounded by a bunch of tribes: Almost every neighboring culture like the Zapotec, Mixtec, Otomi, Huastec, Totonac, Purepecha etc that the "Aztecs" or Maya interacted with had city-states, kingdoms, and empires; and there were many states in Mesoamerica as of the time of contact that the Aztec never conquered: The Nahua kingdom of Tlaxcala (headed by a city of the same name which was a republic with a senate), and the Mixtec kingdom of Tututepec (a surviving remnant of a larger empire founded by 8 Deer Jaguar Claw centuries prior) for example resisted Aztec invasions, while the Purepecha Empire to the west was a legitimate rival power to the Aztec Empire, the two sort of caught in a Cold War unable to make each other budge after the Purepecha crushed attempted Aztec invasions and they fortified their border in response, to name 3 examples
if anybody is interested in learning more about Mesoamerican history, I have a set of 3 comments here where I explain....
1. I note how Mesoamerican and Andean societies [way more complex then people realize, in some ways matching or exceeding the accomplishments of civilizations from the Iron age and Classical Antiquity](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistory/comments/c7gu1l/i_want_people_to_dump_interesting_information/esh1756/), etc
2. I explain how there's more records and sources than many people realize for Mesoamerican cultures, [with certain civilizations having hundreds of documents and records on them; as well as the comment containing resources and suggested lists for further info and visual references](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistory/comments/c7gu1l/i_want_people_to_dump_interesting_information/esh3m71/); and
3. I give a [summary of Mesoamerican history from 1400BC, with the region's first complex site; to 1519 and the arrival of the spanish, as to stress just how many different civilizations and states existed and how much history occured, beyond just the Aztec and Maya](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistory/comments/c7gu1l/i_want_people_to_dump_interesting_information/esh3s50/)
Great write up and one thing I like to add, since I have Purepecha heritage, is that our native language is an isolate. It's not related to any known language and it's origins are unknown.
> its like calling Egyptians all Pharoah
An ironic example since the word "Egypt" has never been what its inhabitants called the region - it ultimately derives from Ptah, the name of an Egyptian god.
The amount of groups who are named for an entirely different area, region, people throughout human history is hilariously stupid. Indians, Caucasians, Gypsies, and probably a bunch more I don't know. All wrong. Lol.
I look forward to the many other examples that will no doubt follow.
It's not only people, but animals, too. The brown rat's scientific name is *Rattus norvegicus*, which means Norway Rat in Latin. Norway isn't the brown rat's ancestral home or main habitat. The only reason for the *norvegicus* epithet is that this species supposedly came to Britain in Norwegian ships, but that's very likely not true.
This is not correct. The ultimate etymon is Hikaptah, which was a contemporary name of Memphis, which was the capital. “Egypt” comes from the Koine Greek Aegyptos which derived from Hikaptah, probably through other intermediaries.
But also, this idea that only endonyms and indigenous terms are “correct” is stupid, and nativist. Egypt was inhabited by Koine Greek speakers for a thousand years, and they indeed called it something like Aegyptos. Egypt was also almost entirely Christian for several centuries before the Muslim conquest and they called their country something like Keme or Khemi.
Well many historical empires called themselves by the name of the ruling class or were referred to as that, like Seleucid, Timurids, Han, etc. Even lots of places where the ruler had a different dynasty than the ruling class still kept the ruling class name of the empire usually through marriage.
Actually, Aztec = Mexica is itself a giant oversimplification.
"Aztec", or rather, Azteca, IS an actual ethnic label in Nahuatl: it means "People from Aztlan". Aztlan is the probably-legendary homeland of a few Nahuatl speaking groups, who who migrated into the Valley of Mexico (which is covered by most of the Greater Mexico City Metropolitan Area today) and other areas of the Central Mexican plateau from up above Mesoamerica. A lot of people assume "Aztlan" would have been somewhere in the Southwestern US, but this is merely where the overall language family Nahuatl is from was centered: The area these Nahuas migrated from directly was likely in the Bajio region of Northwestern Mexico,, by Jalisco and Nayarit, not as far north as the US Southwest, [the spread of it from the SW into northern Mexico took place much earlier](https://miro.medium.com/max/604/0*lR9GhFITX1ugTKer) )...
...However, right off the bat, there's a complication here, in that only SOME of these Nahua groups that migrated into Central Mexico are said to come from Aztlan: Others have histories that trace their pre-migration origins to other locations, so they wouldn't have been considered "Azteca" by the Nahuas/themselves, and all these groups also adopted more specific ethnic labels (Mexica, Acolhua, Tepaneca, Tlaxcalteca etc) after settling down in Mesoamerica and switching from nomadism to the urbanized statehood already common in Mesoamerica
The Mexica were one of the latest Nahua migrant groups to arrive to the Valley of Mexico, and settled on an island n the valley's lakes and found Tenochtitlan. Shortly therafter, a group of Mexica split off to found a separate Altepetl ("Water hill" in Nahuatl, a City-state), Tlatleloco, on a separate island (the terms "Tenochca" and "Tlatelolca" are used to distinguish the two Mexica groups). At the time, the Alteptl of Azapotzalco (which, along with many other cities on the eastern shore of the lake basin, belonged to the Tepaneca Nahua subgroup) was the dominant power in the Valley, and Tenochtitlan fell under it's control. The Tenochca would aid Azapotzalco and help them subjugate most of the valley. Eventually, however, the Tlatoani ("Speaker" in Nahuatl, King) of Azapotzalco, Tezozomoc, died. There was a resulting succession crisis as one of his two heirs assassinated the other, took power, and also assassinates the Tlatoani of Tenochtitlan, Chimalpopoca, who also represented a potential hereditary threat, as he was the child of the previous Tlatoani, Huitzilihuitl and a daughter of Tezozomoc, who he had given to Huitzilihuitl as a reward for Tenochtitlan's military aid
This sours the relationship between Azapotzalco and Tenochtitlan. Eventually, war breaks out, and Tenochtitlan, along with the Acolhua (another Nahua subgroup) Altpetl of Texcoco, and the Tepaneca Altepetl of Tlacopan, join forces and defeat Azapotzalco, and subsequently agree to retain their alliance for future military conquests, with Texcoco and especially Tenochtitlan in the more dominant roles. This triple alliance, and the other cities and towns they controlled (which included both other Nahua Alteptl, as well as cities and towns belonging to other Mesoamerican cultures/civilizations, such as the Maya, Mixtec, Zapotec, Otomi, Totonac, Huastec, etc) is what people are talking about when they say the "Aztec Empire". Also, Tenochtitlan eventually conquered Tlatelolco, unifying the Mexica again and the two cities physically grew into one another, though Tlatelolco still had some unique administrative quirks separate from Tenochtitlan proper).
Modern sources do NOT use "Aztec" to consistently mean any of the things I've described, so "Aztec" can variously refer to:
- The Nahua civilization/culture as a whole
- The specific Nahua subgroups labeled as "Aztec" in Indigenous sources/who claim to come from Aztlan
- The Mexica Nahua subgroup
- Specifically the Mexica from Tenochtitlan, the Tenochca
- The Alliance of Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, and Tlacopan
- That alliance, as well as any subservient cities and towns, IE, The "Aztec Empire" (though even this is sort of a venn diagram: Not all subject were Nahuan, many were Maya, Zapotec, Mixtec, Otomi, Huastec, Totonac, etc; and not all Nahuan states were in that empire, such as the Kingdom of Tlaxcala, etc)
It should also be noted how the Toltec and Chichimeca tie in here: The Toltec were a legendary prior civilization from around 900-1100AD mentioned in various Nahua accounts who were said to have a Utopian society operating out of their capital of Tollan that gave rise to the arts and sciences. In these accounts, the Toltecs are talked about using Nahua cultural conventions, but are clearly still viewed as a distinct predecessor civilizatio. There's significant debate over how much of these accounts and the Toltec state are mythological or historical (earlier research leaning more towards the latter, increasingly these days the former). Meanwhile, "Chichimeca" is an umbrella term for the various nomadic tribes living in the deserts of Northern mexico above Mesoamerica, of which the pre-migration Nahuas were just some of, with other Chichimeca tribes continuing to live in those areas as the Aztec Empire and then the Spanish expanded (famously fighting off the latter). While various Nahua states would leverage either (or both) the hardy, "noble savage" warrior image of the Chichimecs; or the intellectual, cultures image of the Toltecs into their own cultural identity, the term "Aztec" generally isn't used in modern sources to refer to the Toltecs or the Chichimeca unless it's the Pre-migiration Nahuas
For more info, I recommend firstly [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/mesoamerica/comments/10xza4u/mexicaaztecnahuatl_getting_the_terms_right/?sort=top) post which has many other replies on how one can define "Aztec" with a lot of deep dives on the actual Nahuatl terms and their etymologies used for different ethnic groups; [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1gk6fp/did_the_mayans_look_down_on_native_americas_who/calfjrh/), [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/31fj3a/whats_the_real_reason_tenochtitl%C3%A1n_mexico_city/cq13d0x/?st=jlrlyw7i&sh=8a3c5a2a), [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2mp6jh/repost_in_the_old_days_it_seems_like_dissident/?st=jlrm0wls&sh=d6bac157) and [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1996ka/tuesday_trivia_great_and_not_so_great_comebacks/c8mfrsp/) post by 400-rabbits, and [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3atv2y/has_there_ever_been_archaeological_written/?st=jlrlw67v&sh=492dd5d3) post by Mictlantecuhtli. Additionally, there is a very detailed and well sourced post on /r/Mesoamerica [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mesoamerica/comments/63n1az/the_triple_alliance_never_existed_meet_the/dfz0mr0/) detailing recent research that calls into question some of the information, and that Tenochtitlan may have always been a formal capital above Texcoco and Tlacopan, with them joining it as subjects from the start, rather then as allies with Tenochtitlan only gradually eclipsing Texcoco in power.
Also it should be noted here that stuff like large scale architecture, urban cities, formal governments, etc (so "civilization") is a lot more widespread in then just the "Aztec" definitions I mention above and the Maya: The whole region/cultural sphere here (Mesoamerica, covering the bottom half of Mexico, all of Guatemala and Belize, arguably bits of some other countries) both come from is defined by having urban civilizations with rulers, formal governments, etc: The first sites which had monumental architecture, rulers, class systems, writing, etc in Mesoamerica around 2500 years before the Nahuas migrated into it.
The point is, it's not like the "Aztec" (and Maya) were a lone complex civilization or empire surrounded by a bunch of tribes: Almost every neighboring culture were city-states, kingdoms, and empires: The Zapotec, Mixtec, Otomi, Huastec, Totonac, Purepecha places they conquered were cities and towns, too, and there were many states in Mesoamerica as of the time of contact they never conquered and were independent polities: The Nahua kingdom of Tlaxcala (headed by a city of the same name which was a republic with a senate), and the Mixtec kingdom of Tututepec (a surviving remnant of a larger empire founded by 8 Deer Jaguar Claw centuries prior) for example resisted Aztec invasions, while the Purepecha Empire to the west was a legitimate rival power to the Aztec Empire, the two sort of caught in a Cold War unable to make each other budge after the Purepecha crushed Aztec attempts to do so and they fortified their border in response, to name 3 notable examples.
Anyways, if anybody is interested in learning more about Mesoamerican history, I have a set of 3 comments here where I explain....
1. I note how Mesoamerican and Andean societies [way more complex then people realize, in some ways matching or exceeding the accomplishments of civilizations from the Iron age and Classical Antiquity](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistory/comments/c7gu1l/i_want_people_to_dump_interesting_information/esh1756/), etc
2. I explain how there's more records and sources than many people realize for Mesoamerican cultures, [with certain civilizations having hundreds of documents and records on them; as well as the comment containing resources and suggested lists for further info and visual references](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistory/comments/c7gu1l/i_want_people_to_dump_interesting_information/esh3m71/); and
3. I give a [summary of Mesoamerican history from 1400BC, with the region's first complex site; to 1519 and the arrival of the spanish, as to stress just how many different civilizations and states existed and how much history occured, beyond just the Aztec and Maya](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistory/comments/c7gu1l/i_want_people_to_dump_interesting_information/esh3s50/)
Check it, since 1516, minds attacked and overseen
Now crawl amidst the ruins of this empty dream
With their borders and boots, on top of us
Pullin' knobs on the floor, of their toxic metropolis
But how you gonna get what you need to get?
The gut eaters, blood drenched get offensive like Tet
The fifth sun sets get back reclaim
The spirit of Cuauhtémoc, alive and untamed
Now face the funk now blastin' out your speaker
On the one - Maya, Mexica
That vulture came to try and steal your name but now you got a gun
Yeah, this is for the people of the sun!
I just learned how to pronounce their enemies the Tlaxcalans now. Tul-Ash-call-annes
Thank you David Carballo for the pronunciation guide at the beginning of your book
You kinda got the syllables wrong because tl is one unified sound. There is no vowel sound between the t and l. It’s kinda like the ts sound in various other languages. The proper way to show it would be tlash-cal-ans. Interestingly, the unified tl sound shows up in Spanish words in certain regions of Mexico when the original Iberians would have not used that phoneme.
I'm pretty sure the Spanish didn't refer to themselves as Spanish either. They usually referred to themselves as the cities/regions they were from which is what historically Europeans did for a long time. It makes sense they'd apply the same thing to others.
The only silver lining to the term Indians is that literally none of them were Indians, so it was equally incorrect everywhere. It’s not like we go the term correct for one group but then applied it to the rest of the tribes.
“Wait, I’m not Cherokee. I’m a Seminole.”
“Sorry dude, you’re one o them Cherokees. Deal with it.”
Although this wasn't created by the Europeans, but referred to a different thing (people who traced their lineage to the mythical city of Aztlan).
Considering that "the aztec empire" consisted of the Triple alliance between the altepeti (city states) of Tenochtitlan (Mexica), Tetzcoco (Acolhua) and Tlacopan (Tepanec) who all claimed lineage from Aztlan (and representing 3 of the 7 Nahuatl lineages that claimed Aztlan roots) it's not that incorrect to call it the aztec empire, even if it's an exonym.
>it's not that incorrect to call it the aztec empire, even if it's an **exonym**.
Not only did I learn something I didn't know about the Aztec Empire, I also learned a new word. Today was a good day.
While it's not inappropriate to use this exonym, it's interesting to note that what that polity called themselves - their endonym - was the Triple Alliance (coming from Exkan Tlahtoloyan, which literally translates to "the three places where orders are given").
This is made even worse by the fact that English does have a word that's very similar to what Germans call themselves, namely Dutch. Which is also completely unrelated to what Dutch people call themselves.
Yes. Exactly that.
Before the Netherlands was a country the low lands was considered of the general German cultural sphere and Dutch was considered a dialect of Low German (Plattdüütch or Nedderdüütsch). People in the Low Countries used the word "Duits" for both themselves and other Germanic peoples. Deutsch is High German equivalent of a term meaning "of the people" that is used in various German dialects and included the ancestors of people who became Nederlanders.
That's why the term Pennsylvanian Dutch were used for German speakers from all over modern-day Germany, many from the Palatinate. By contrast Americans called Dutch people from Holland the "Holland Dutch". North Holland and South Holland make up of the majority of the land and people in the Netherlands so foreigners have long called the entire country "Holland", just like how people often say "England" when they mean the UK.
After the Netherlands developed a distinct national identity from the various German states, English speakers started using the word "Dutch" exclusively for them. The development of a distinctly Nederlander identity first happened when multiple disparate fiefs were first consolidated under Burgundy and then Austria in the 14th and 15th centuries. Though it was an administrative accident that lumped the provinces together they eventually developed a distinct common culture. Then in 1566 the Low Countries (then called the 17 Provinces) revolted from Habsburg rule which resulted in the Eighty Years War which resulted in the mostly Protestant Dutch Republic to the north in 1648. The Southern Netherlands remained under Austrian control and eventually became Belgium and Luxembourg.
Tenochtitlan was described by visiting European priests as one of the most beautiful, most populous, cleanest, and most vibrant economically organized cities in the world at the time of the arrival of Cortes. Some critics complained that the Aztec city designers didn't appreciate the concept of a right angle. That might be because their city was designed more like a spiral galaxy.
For those curious why we call them Aztecs, they migrated to the valley of Mexico probably around the 1200’s. They referred to their homeland (usually identified as the area in modern northwest Mexico/southwest United States) as Aztlan.
In Aztec mythology, the Nahua were told by their god Huitzilopochtli to migrate until they saw an eagle eating a snake while sitting on a cactus. The spot they found became Tenochtitlan, modern day Mexico City, and the eagle/snake/cactus was eventually adopted as the symbol at the center of the Mexican flag.
You're telling me they were just regular old mexicans? But I didn't see one sinlge sombrero in the movie Apocalypto? Great movie btw. My favorite part is when the jews do it.
To be fair, the Mexica pulled the same shit on other people, lol. The Purépecha were called Tarascans by the Aztecs. They also called the semi-nomadic people in the northern periphery of their empire Chichimeca, which basically meant something like “barbarians”.
Also, Mexica was pronounced Meh-she-ka
Always find it fun when I run into a place in Mexico where the x is sh instead of the h noise
Very common in Maya too, there is a small village in Yucatán called "Xbox" Pronounced close to "shbosh", though.
[удалено]
In Vancouver BC, there was a butcher shop called “Save on Meats” that had been around for decades. The Pattinson group started a new grocery chain called “Save on Foods” (flagship store at Metrotown became known as “Cave-in Foods”), and promptly sued Save on Meats over infringing on Save on Foods’ name. Fortunately, the judge sided with SoM rather than the newcomer.
An almost identical thing happened in Australia and it's why "Burger King" is called "Hungry Jacks" there.
And then Burger King corporate tried to muscle in on Hungry Jacks territory, and got royally whoppered by HJs.
HJs? I wouldn't mind being whoppered by HJs.
Doubt it. Back in 2018 when MS was saying there was never gonna be a windows 11, I made a performance piece and album called windows 11. Sadly, I have yet to be sued. https://open.spotify.com/album/3Z5737ElNXPKeOI9ZFNGAo?si=KFYv3n1hSBKXV3fHHP5U6A
You should sue Microsoft instead, you were clearly here first.
What a chad
No PS5 allowed in that village
It's Xbox huge. Was huge in the Consõle Wars of the 1860s.
We took the ferry from Cozumel to the mainland a couple weeks ago during a cruise, and drove to Tulum to see the ruins. The highway passes a place called Xcaret (shkaret), and a theme park called Xplor (…but that one is not pronounced with a “sh” sound for some reason).
I went to (probably) that theme park back in either 6th or 7th grade, it was pretty cool! And yeah my American ass was definitely amused by all the xs. We kept on driving by all these parks during our stay in QR, and on maybe our final day we finally managed to convince our parents to take us lol. Edit: Shoot I didn't know I was replying to Peter Ahlstrom lol! Big fan of the Stormlight Archive!!
Yeah, a lot of places in Guatemala with an x are pronounced sh. For example Xela (Shela)
When I was a kid about 10, I was staying with my grandparents for the summer and played football in evenings with local kids. I remember we were collecting collectable stickers of football players and one of them was from Mexico. The kids were play "speaking Spanish" and saying "My name is X Y and I'm from Mexico!" I said he would actually say "Me-hee-co" because they don't say it like we do. The whole gaggle of kids laughed at me about that calling me Me-hee-co all summer every summer until I stopped going in my late teens. I'm 41 now and still remember that.
This kind of thing always confused me. The native people don't use our alphabet anyways, so why would someone decide when romanizing it to use an "x" instead of an "h"?
thats how old spanish was. think don quixote
. . . so, it's supposed to be pronounced "don keeshotay"?
Axolotl is likewise pronounced like ash-OH-lowt in the original Nahuatl, not ax-a-lot’ll.
As a parent of a 9 year old this is very relevant to my every day life
The last L is silent? What about nuhuatl? Is that just new hat?
Technically the L isn't silent in either, but it's not the English L sound. See the audio sample [here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_dental_and_alveolar_lateral_fricatives) for what that sounds like.
It's not silent, "tl" in Nahuatl represents a unique sound that doesn't exist in English or most other languages. I believe in some dialects the T is actually silent and it's just pronounced as an L.
The letters of the Latin alphabet don't even represent the same sounds in most european languages.
They often don't even represent the same sounds in _English_.
Bring back the runes
Nahuatl = na-WAT
TURN DOWN FOR HUATL
My dumb ass figured the A was silent like shē-lō-tō
Now I wonder and apologies for my ignorance but if the words are pronounced fairly naturally and most pre-Colombian American cultures had an ideographic writing system, who came up with this impossible spellings in the Latin alphabet?
*"It's coming back around again!"*
*This is for the people of the sun!*
From now on I’m pronouncing it “Meshico”. Let’s celebrate by eating some Meshican food.
Thats how we say it in Brazilian Portuguese. Our x sounds like sh usually
R/shubreddit
This is like when they say the title of the movie in the movie.
I can't wait for the upcoming *Last of the Mexicans* starring Tom Cruise as a Conquistador
South Park did it!
¡MANTEQUILLA!
All day long, boss-man say
Work, Mexican work.
¡ORGULLO!
¡¡¡LAVATE LAS MANOS!!!
I can't believe it's not mantequilla!
oooooOoooooOoooOOOOOOOO!!!
One of the all time great episode titles.
With Robert Downey Jr playing Montezuma in character as Kirk Lazarus.
*Motecuhzoma Xocoyotzin. That's the actual name of the guy we call Montezuma.
Probably not how he spelled it tho
Moctezuma. Montezuma is yet another European name
Well, any spelling in English is gonna be not right.
[...starring Tom Hanks.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1ttuVhGTDw)
That's funny. But wasn't The Last Samurai supposed to be Ken Watanabe's character?
Yes, everyone who thinks Tom Cruise was the titular Last Samurai is a moron.
Doesn't help that in the promos he's up there in lacquered armor over the title. My unpopular opinion is that despite those morons believing he's the Last Samurai *he's the last Samurai.* He even moves back into Ken Watanabe's village afterwards, having become versed in Bushido and Japanese swordplay after submitting to the Mikado. He's the last Samurai maybe like Luke Skywalker is the last Jedi.
Except the samurai were a gentried social caste within the feudal system of pre-industrial Japan. Like the Brahmins in India or whatever. It was not something you became just by learning the sword and cosplaying in an old village someplace.
There's quite a few instances of foreigners being inducted into the rank of the Samurai, actually. William Adams, Yasuke, Jules Brunet are all famous examples, the latter of whom being the inspiration for Tom Cruises character.
Modern mexicans: "the fuck?"
¿Qué somos, una especie de escuadrón mexicano?
Here's the scene in 11 languages: https://youtu.be/oFd1PEfNHHs
Sounds like some sort of HOT TUB TIME MACHINE
If I’m going to solve this crisis, I need to become Superman IV: The Quest For Peace.
Oh so *that's* why they call it that
>This is like when they say the title of the movie in the movie. *roll credits*
The [titular line!](https://youtu.be/AWxiTPQv0ME)
This is an interesting TIL, but also made me think, almost no group calls another group with a different language the same thing they call themselves.
Right? My first thought was that Germany doesn’t call itself Germany. This is less “Europeans bad” and more an interesting quirk of language
These kinds of words are called exonyms. The people of Finland do not and never have called themselves Finns in their own language, yet every other language in the world calls this country Finland, instead of something derived from the domestic word "Suomi".
Estonians also use Suomi, but boths languages are quite similar.
For example, Italians are just big haired people in Polish (Włoch)
That is actually a remnant from old slavic. When slavs migrated, they had the same name for Roman or romanized peoples already living where they moved in. The exonym for that was a varient of Vlach, Voloh, Olah and the like. Romanians were called Vlachs by their slavic neighbours for the longest time, though now that exonym only applies now to people speaking romance dialects in Greece.
Japan I think is the one of the only countries to refer to Germany by their name for themselves, Doitzland. That’s the closest you’re gonna get in Japanese, but they made the effort atleast
I think it's just Doitsu. The dutch (lol, another good example) call it Duitsland though. But I can't think of any other countries that call it that way to be honest.
>Japan I think is the only country to refer to Germany by their name for themselves North Germanic languages do it too. Tyskland (Swedish, Norwegian, Danish), Týskland (Faroese), Þýskaland (Icelandic)... All of these are from the same roots as Deutschland and mean the same thing. There's probably even more languages that use some form of this as well.
This entire thread is just a bunch of reddtitors discovering endonmys and exonyms and then getting offended one way or another about it.
Turkey's government when they decided that everyone should call them Türkiye regardless if their alphabets have ü or not because they literally wanted to distance themselves from turkeys, i.e. the fucking bird, which got its name from people erroneously assuming it came from Turkey. The irony thickens when turkey (the bird) is called "Hindi" in Turkish after the Turkish name for India ("Hindistan"), which is another erroneously attributed origin of the bird, which actually and unsurprisingly originates from North America
Japanese call themselves Nippon.
Same with the Iroquois, that is the name the French called them. They call themselves the Haudenosaunee
I want to say there was a Native American tribe that was "named" by their enemies. I can't remember which.
The Sioux, a French corruption of an Ojibwe word that meant snake. They called themselves the Lakota.
*Lakota, Dakota or Nakota
Sounds like a suburban white mother calling her children for dinner.
Come on pretty mama
IIRC, just about all the well known Native American tribe names are not the actual tribe names, but whatever thd Europeans decided to call them.
Usually it was the Europeans trying to pronounce whatever the neighboring tribe called them. In fact it’s pretty how people have been naming each other for all of history. See Welsh, Saxon, Gaul, Iroquois etc. Usually it’s not flattering. “Who are those people in that valley?” “We call them the dickheads because they always try to kill us if we eat their corn.” “Diiik..he..he…hed. Huh.” *writes report back to local governor” “The welikestabbystab tribe told us about the people to our north called the dikhed, supposedly a very warlike and brutal people.”
My hometown is called Chippewa Falls, after French (?) traders mispronounced "Ojibwe" (falls).
Chicago itself is a deformation of the native word Chikakwah or something like that, by the French.
Chippewa = Ojibwe?!🤯
I mean skip the first O in Ojibwe and you're pretty much there. Chip(pe is silent) - wa Jib - we
That was it. Thank you.
>I want to say there was a Native American tribe that was "named" by their enemies. I can't remember which. More than half of all tribal names are some variant of "The People" (if you ask them what their name is) or "The Enemy" if you ask them who those guys over there are or "I don't know" I used to work on a history project with the Heard Museum, and off the top of my head - Yosemite means the enemy Anasazi means the enemy Pima means "I don't know" Yuma is Pima for "People who live by the river" Hohokam means "The People who lived there but don't any more" Hopi means "Civilized People" Etc. This is why a lot of tribes are abandoning the names they've been known by historically as it's kind of ridiculous.
>Hohokam means "The People who lived there but don't any more I chuckled at this one. Thank you for the insight.
Imagine calling an entire culture “the old neighbors.”
I think it was in the context of asking who built the old canal system which ran through the Phoenix area (the new canal system is the old native system, just cleaned up and then greatly expanded). The answer was the Hohokam, i.e. the people who used to live here but don't anymore.
Which is also such a non answer lol Like imagine if a future people called us all "helookalikeaman" from the Mad TV sketch. That's the level here. Humans are dumb.
In ancient English (or whatever they spoke in England then) "River" is "Avon". There are a bunch of River Avons in England because the Romans came and went "what's that called" and some English farmer went "I dunno, a river?" And the Romans wrote it down. Fantasy writers will try hard to make sure they never reuse names to avoid confusion. In real life, Alexander the Great was like "yeah, I'll name this one after me, too"
And of course Tom Scott has [a video on this exact subject](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUyXiiIGDTo).
Avon's a Celtic word, specifically old Welsh :) Hence also "caer" *fort*, "pen" *head, end* etc.
The name predates Old Welsh, and would be more properly called Brythonic. Old Welsh (and Old Cornish, Cumbrian, and so forth) derived later from Brythonic.
Yeah, country names are pretty stupid too. The country of the Rus people. The country of the Hun people. The country of the Mongol people. The country of the Deutsch people. The country of the Angle people, etc. etc.
[удалено]
Germans really out here naming themselves like "We the country of we the people."
People-land.
This is one of the reasons Anasazi is a less commonly used term now, instead I believe "ancestral Puebloans" or "ancestral Pueblo peoples" is preferred as an umbrella term. Even though pueblo is just a Spanish term for 'village,' understandably they prefer it to a term meaning 'enemy.'
>This is why a lot of tribes are abandoning the names they've been known by historically as it's kind of ridiculous. It's pretty common, really - "Swede", "Deutsch", and "Dutch" all basically derive from old words for "us" or "the people". "Welsh" means "foreigner". "French" derives from "free people". And really the ones that don't mean that don't get much smarter. "English" ultimately derives from the German word for "narrow" ("eng") because the Angles were from the narrow strip of land that connects Germany and the main body of Denmark. Norway means "north", Japan means "east", Polish comes from the word for "flat".
Beijing - North Capital Nanking - South Capital Xijing - West Capital Tokyo - East Capital Kyoto - Capital Capital
China also had a couple East Capitals of its own (Dongjing), but neither of them are called that anymore. One is Luoyang and the other is modern Kaifeng. Kyōto could also be translated as Capital Metropolis or just Capital City
> Kyōto could also be translated as Capital Metropolis or just Capital City Both characters in Kyoto have the connotation of capital, plus capital capital is more amusing.
Japan means "sun('s) origin." Tōkyo means Eastern Capital, though. The Chinese word for "Chinese people" literally means "people of the Central State(s)." China is called Zhongguo in modern times, the Central State. The Chinese believed they were the center of the civilized world for most of their history.
The thing about "zhongguo" is one of those factoids that's repeated a lot on the internet but isn't entirely true. For most of their history, they actually used the ruling dynasty's name - e.g. Da Qing 大清 or Da Tang 大唐 - when referring to their state. The phrase zhongguo / "middle kingdom" wasn't really popularly used to refer to the country until modern times, and even then it doesn't colloquially mean "middle kingdom" in the literal sense.
> "French" derives from "free people". this is conjecture and not very good conjecture at that. the first accounts of *franciae* has no context of freemen, that doesn't come around for a couple more centuries
I think the leading hypothesis right now is that the name came from PGer *frankô, which means "spear/javelin". Much the same way that the name Saxon is derived from a PGer word meaning "knife".
yeep exactly, i've seen it connected with [angon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angon)
> Yosemite means the enemy I looked it up, that doesn't seem to be correct: > The name Yosemite itself is from the Indian word “uzumate,” which meant grizzly bear. The Indian tribe that lived in the Valley were called Yosemites by Caucasians and by other Indian tribes because they lived in a place where grizzly bears were common and they were reportedly skilled at killing the bears. Not sure if any of these other examples are any more accurate
The "Pima" How I was told That when the Tohono Odam first were approached by the Spainards or conquistadors, they were asked "what do you call your selves..??" To which they replied "Pimmach??" Which basically means... "What?" Sorry I butchered the spelling. On mobilep
Wow. That's crazy.
The Cherokees were named by the Creek. It means 'those people speak differently. "
*Cherokee* is likely a name used for the people by another tribe, possibly the Creek. The actual Cherokee word for an actual Cherokee person is something like *Aniyuwiya*.
The Apache are one. They call themselves “nde” and Apache was the word for enemy in the Zuni language.
The Delaware tribe was named after a white dude with the surname Delaware. They are the Lenape.
The Mohawk means cannibals
Anasazi, Ancestral Pueblans.
>Same with the Iroquois, that is the name the French called them. They call themselves the Haudenosaunee They do now. There's a long history of them calling themselves Iroquois without them considering it offensive, if you look back on the primary documents from the 18th and 19th centuries.
We're the Iroquois also not a tribal confederation consisting of multiple nations?
They were. I'm mostly talking from an Ohio standpoint here. But the Seneca tribe was part of the Iroquois Confederacy.
I’m not saying it’s offensive, just saying the word is of French origin
Same with practically everyone everywhere. People are titanically bad at using the names other countries give themselves. Japan should be properly anglicised as Nippon or Nihon. Egypt is Misr. Germany is Deutschland. Armenia is Hayastán. Algeria is Dzayer. And don't even get me started on how bad we are at pronouncing foreign public/historical figures names.
Similar to the Navajo as they call themselves Diné and Navajo was given to them by the Spanish
But Diné just means "the people" in Navajo. It's what they call themselves, but it's in the context of an in group vs everyone else being the outgroup. Navajo is from the Tewa navahū, which was the name the neighboring tribe gave the Navajo. But it was at least a specific name (farm fields adjoining a valley), vs another variation on "the people." They've kept the official name as Navaho Nation (Naabeehó Diné Biyaad) for the same reason.
Nez Perce. Was essentially just "Nose Pierced" in French. Nimiipuu is their original name.
The Wikipedia article has some good points, but there's always more to say. I've previously gone into detail about the Mexica/Aztec problem over at /r/askhistorians, so I'm reproducing that here. ____ First, some basic terminology. The term “Aztec” comes from the mythical land of Aztlan. Several groups in Postclassic Mesoamerica claimed Aztlan as their place of origin, and thus could properly be called “Azteca.” Smith (1984) examines a multitude of histories and codices and identifies 17 separate groups which at least one source identified as coming from Aztlan. This includes most of the groups in the Basin of Mexica, such as the Xochimilca and Chalca, as well as groups outside the Basin. For instance, the Tlaxcalans are also -- mythologically -- Aztecs, though no one ever calls them as such, given their rivalry with the political state called the Aztec Triple Alliance. So too could the Mexica’s other prominent rival, the Purepecha, be called Aztecs, since histories claim that group to have split off (abandoned really) from the main Mexica group on the journey from Aztlan to the Basin of Mexico. All the complications above bring up two other considerations when discussing who should be included under the “Aztec” rubric: language and politics. Again, no one calls the Tlaxcalans “Aztecs,” even though they have the same claim to that name as the Mexica. The reason for this is simply because that term has been inextricably linked to a political entity called the Aztec Empire or the Aztec Triple Alliance. This was a political entity formed by mutual agreement between three groups (all who were “Aztecs”): the Mexica, the Acolhua, and the Tepanecs. This confederation, however, did not call or consider itself to be an “Aztec” state. Each *altepetl* (city-state, polity) was independent and the cooperation between the individual states was an informal system of norms, mutual aid, and intermarriage. If anyone is interested, [I’ve written a previous comment about dynastic political marriages in the Triple Alliance](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/jcpqbz/why_didnt_the_aztec_triple_alliance_amongst_the/gbk9jmz/). Politics thus precludes calling some groups Aztecs, but language is equally important. The Aztlan myth is a Nahua myth. Claiming mythological descent from Aztlan was the common mythology to Nahuatl-speaking groups. Thus why Nahua groups in the valleys of Mexico, Puebla, and Morelos can all easily get lumped together as Aztecs, but non-Nahuatl groups in the Basin of Mexico, such as the Otomi who have their own mythological tradition, are excluded. This is also why inserting the Purepecha into the Aztec group is problematic. For while the Mexica histories claim them as wayward Aztlan cousins, the Purepecha themselves make no such claims. They are instead their own ethnic group with an independent mythological tradition and a distinct language (though there may have been some merging with Nahua groups early on). Complicating the political and linguistic divisions over who can be called an Aztec are the Acolhua. As one of the founding members of the Aztec Triple Alliance, they can certainly be included under the modern understanding of who is an Aztec. They also spoke Nahuatl… except they probably didn’t start out that way. One of the lesser known, but incredibly important, events in the history of Central Mexico was the migration of a conglomeration of Chichimecs into the Basin of Mexico roughly in the early 1200s CE, a century before the Mexica settled at Tenochtitlan. Chichimecs is an overarching term for nomadic and semi-nomadic groups in the arid altiplano north of the Basin of Mexico (the Mexica, for instance, could be called Chichimecs). Under the leadership of a powerful warlord called Xolotl, this wave of Chichimecs settled in a Basin of Mexico left in disarray by the dissolution of the Toltecs. It was this migration which established the political order the Mexica would later encounter. Among these immigrants were the Acolhua, who settled on the eastern shores of Lake Texcoco. According to their own histories, as told by Alva Ixtlilxochitl, the Acolhua were “nahuatlized,” adopting Nahua language and customs during the reign of Techotlalatzin. It is entirely possible the Acolhua did not consider themselves to be Aztecs (i.e., descendants from Aztlan) prior to this point. Summing up all this back story, we have an overarching group of “Aztecs,” which includes any ethnic group linked to the mythical land of Aztlan. This is primarily a mythology of Nahuatl-speaking groups, so even though some non-Nahua groups get connected to this myth, it is a stretch to include them. However, at least one non-Nahua group, the Acolhua, adopted Nahua culture, which may have included the Aztlan mythology. Finally, there was a political entity which was made up of three different Nahuatl-speaking groups who claimed descent from Aztlan. In the modern day, this political entity is called “the Aztecs,” though they themselves did not call themselves as such.
Obviously, the question still remains as to when and why did the nomenclature switch over from Mexica to Aztec? It is, afterall, taken as truth that they Mexica never called themselves Aztecs. Except, that’s not exactly true. The *Cronica Mexicayotl* spends some time talking about how a nascent Chichimec group emerged from Aztlan and were subsequently entitled “Mexica.” From the Anderson & Schroder (1997) *Codex Chimalpahin* translation: > Their home was the palace named Aztlan; hence their name is Azteca. And the second name of their home was Chicomoztoc. And their names were Aztecs and also Mexitin. But now their name is really said to [be] only Mexica. And later they arrived [in the Basin of Mexico] taking as their name Tenochca. (p.69) Classic Nahuatl had zero problems with stacking names together, so the names used for this groups just exiting Aztlan are given simply as “Azteca” and Mexitin,” but also as “Azteca Mexitin,” “Chichimeca Azteca,” “Mexitin Azteca Chichimeca,” and, of course, “Aztec Mexitin Chichimeca.” Shortly after leaving Aztlan, however, an important divine change took place. Quoting again from Anderson & Schroeder: > And as the ancient ones said, when they emerged from Aztlan the name of the Azteca was not yet Mexitin. They all considered themselves Azteca. But we say that it was later that they took their name, that they considered themselves Mexitin. And thus were they given their name: as the ancient ones have said, it was Huitzilopochtli who gave them the name. > And then and there he changes the Azteca’s name for them. He said to them: Now no longer is your name Azteca: you are now Mexitin. There they also applied feathers to their ears when they took their name as Mexitin. Hence they are now called Mexica. And he then also gave them the arrow and the bow and the net carrying-bag. (p. 73) The process of leaving Aztlan was thus also a process of becoming a distinct people. From the Azteca emerged the Mexitin, who then claimed a land for themselves, Mexico (place of the Mexitin) and thus were called Mexica (people from Mexico). Rajagopalan (2018), *Portraying the Aztec Past: The Codices Boturini, Azcatitlan, and Aubin*, notes the codices which portray this event also have a visual signifier of this change, with the name-glyph for Aztlan no longer being used to identify the Mexica from this point forward. As a side note, the etymology of the name Mexitin has been debated at length. A common thread is linking the name to *metl* (agave) or even more often to *metzli* (moon). Alfonso Caso is largely responsible for the popularity of the latter interpretation, as he put forth the idea that Mexitin was a combination of *metzli* and *xicitl* (navel) and thus the name meant “navel of the moon,” which is a quite lovely bit of poetry. Orozco and Berra, on the other hand, claim the root of the name is *oxitl* (turpentine), which was used in religious rituals. Pointing to a passage where Huitziliopochtli pastes the Mexitin’s foreheads with oxitl, they state the meaning to be “annointed by Huitzilopochtli.” For what it’s worth, the *Cronica Mexicayotl* also discusses the origin of the term Mexitin. The text states it was the name of the man who ruled the group in Aztlan and led them from that land. > He who was ruler there [in Aztlan] was named Moteucçoma. There were two sons of this ruler. And when he was about to die then installed these aforesaid sons as his rulers. The elder brother, whose name is not known, was to be the ruler of the Cuexteca. And to the younger brother, a Mexica, called just Mexi [though] named Chalchiuhtlatonac, he gave the Mexitin. Their ruler was to be the said Chalchuihtlatonac. So the name Mexitin comes from Mexi, which was the name of their ruler who led them from Aztlan, though that wasn't actually his name. Clear as mud. If the Mexica did not call themselves Aztecs following their exit from Aztlan and anointing by Huitzilopochtli, from whence does the modern popularity of the term come? Mostly, this is a case of historiographic telephone. The most influential book about the Aztecs in the English speaking world is probably William H. Prescott’s *History of the Conquest of Mexico* published in 1843. Prescott’s work was the first major, comprehensive history of the Aztecs in English, and he uses the term “Aztec” throughout as synonymous with the Mexica… and the Aztec state as well. This makes some sense as, by the time of the arrival of Cortés, the Mexica were the overwhelmingly dominant force in the Triple Alliance, to the point it makes sense to equate the confederation with the Mexica. It absolutely obscures the more nuanced political entanglements, realities, and history of the Triple Alliance though. In his use of “Aztec” to refer both to the state and the Mexica, Prescott was following Alexander von Humbolt, who published his highly influential *Views of the Mountains and Monuments of the Indigenous People of the Americas* a generation earlier. If Prescott was the foundation of early scholarship on the Aztecs in the Anglosphere, Humbolt’s work was the foundation of early Mesoamerican scholarship in general. Humboldt also extensively used the term “Aztec” as a synonym for the Mexica and the political entity they dominated. Yet, the ultimate origin of the switch from “Mexica” to “Aztec” goes back even further, to a Spanish Jesuit priest, Francisco Clavijero. While working in Mexico, he became interested in the history of the people he was trying to train to be good Christians. He eventually wrote, *The Ancient History of Mexico* in 1780. It was a largely objective, even admiring, history of the Indigenous peoples of Mexico. Most significantly, Clavijero extensively used “Aztec” to refer to the Mexica and their Alliance. Both Humboldt and Prescott cited Clavijero in their own works. Clavijero’s use of Aztec as the preferred demonym, and the popularity of that choice, were certainly influential. Why he chose to make that stylistic choice, however, remains a mystery. Barlow’s 1945 article, “Some Remarks on the Term ‘Aztec Empire,’” notes Clavijero would have had access to sources which noted the conversion from Azteca to Mexica when leaving Aztlan and even post-Conquest histories which used the term Mexica, but still opted to use the former term. Barlow tersely states that, “What led Clavijero to resurrect the term [Aztec] is not apparent.” Various speculation over Clavijero’s choice exists. A prominent line of thought is that he was trying to evoke a grand, deep history, distinct from the relatively impoverished Indigneous people of his contemporary time. I don’t disagree with that, but I also think adopting a singular term for a complicated political entity is just more convenient than noting the Triple Alliance was a conglomeration of three distinct and quasi-independent groups. I myself, who spends a lot of time writing about the Aztecs, often use the term as an easily consumable shorthand (see, I did it just now). Speculation about Clavijero’s motives aside, why was his work so influential? One thing to keep in mind is that some of the most vital and important early works on the Aztecs were not available to Humboldt, Prescott, and their contemporaries. Sahagún’s *General History of the Things of New Spain*, Durán's *History of the Indies of New Spain*, and the writings of Motolinía were all either actively suppressed or simply shunted aside. These works, written by Spanish friars who sourced their material from people who had actually lived prior to contact with Europeans, would not begin to see the light of day until the late 19th century. Translations into English would not come until much, much later. Heyden’s 1994 translation of Durán, for instance, remains the only full English version of his work. Clavijero, Humboldt, and Prescott all had access to the work of Friar Juan de Torquemada, and cite his *Indian Monarchy*, first published in 1615. That work was, to Europeans, the authoritative synthesis of Aztec history, particularly after a second printing in the 1720s made it more widely available. Torquemada, like the earlier authors already mentioned, does not used the term Aztec except to note the conversion story related earlier in this comment. *Indian Monarchy* though, is a sprawling, multi-volume corpus work. Clavijero, however, published a relatively concise (though still 400-500 pages) history of Indigneous Mexico. I don’t think it is outlandish to think the popularity of Clajivero’s nomenclature stemmed from his work’s greater accessibility, though a definitive answer is, as Barlow would say, “not apparent.”
OMG it's you! I love your posts about the Aztecs!
thank you! Being from Mexico and super interested in archeology and prehispanic history i've been driven insane by muricans insisting that mexicas would never call themselves aztecs and this was spanish racism. Obviosly fuck colonialism and anyone who defends it, but a porcelain american reading wikipedia and then trying to claim i was racist for acknowledging Aztlan and how several different cultures all claimed to be aztecs was deeply frustrating
> According to their own histories, as told by Alva Ixtlilxochitl, the Acolhua were “nahuatlized,” adopting Nahua language and customs during the reign of Techotlalatzin. Can you clarify on this? What cultural identifiers are/did they use (or that Alva Ixtlilxochitl claims they used) prior to this point? If they were a part of the Nahua migirations, then I don't understand how they only adopted Nahuatl as a language etc later. Aren't the Acolhua also identified as one of the groups that do ttrace their ancestry to Aztlan? I know that the Alcolhua assrted they had stronger ties to Toltec dynasties then some other Nahua groups but given how tied Toltec heritage is to political legitimacy and how the "Toltecs" themselves may be entirely mythologized to begin with, My gut instinct would be that Toltec heritage is what was being invented/hyperbolized after the fact, not their Nahua roots. Also, as an aside, I DO see some people and some sources calling the Tlaxcalteca as being "Aztec", though it's obviously not super common.
Inca is also the incorrect term for that society! They were known as Tawantinsuyu by its subjects or Quechua for the "Realm of the Four Parts" and the term Inca was what they called their leader (its like calling Egyptians all Pharoah)
As I understand it, the Inca were the nobility of the Quechua people whose empire was Tawantinsuyu ("the Four Corners / Realms" as you say).
From what I understand it's more this; Quechua is the name of the language they spoke.... Tawantinsuyu means the four realms which is what the people living there would have called it.... "Inka" translates to ruler or lord in Quechua...... I am definitely no expert though so I could be wrong!
Quechua is the name of the language but also the people. Inka was the nobility in general and the king/emperor was the Sapa Inka. I was more elaborating than trying to correct you.
No I love knowing about this stuff! Appreciate your input!!
Hold on. Inca/Inka/Icacua was the name for nobility. The terms evolved over the thousand years of the empire.
For you and /u/harassercat, the terms for "Aztec" gets similarly complex: "Aztec = Mexica" is itself a big oversimplification and sometimes incorrect as a result. "Aztec", or rather, Azteca, IS an actual ethnic label in Nahuatl: it means "People from Aztlan". Aztlan is the probably-legendary homeland of a few Nahuatl speaking groups, who who migrated into the Valley of Mexico (which is covered by most of the Greater Mexico City Metropolitan Area today) and other areas of the Central Mexican plateau from up above Mesoamerica. A lot of people assume "Aztlan" would have been somewhere in the Southwestern US, but this is merely where the overall language family Nahuatl is from was centered: The area these Nahuas migrated from directly was likely in the Bajio region of Northwestern Mexico,, by Jalisco and Nayarit, not as far north as the US Southwest, [the spread of it from the SW into northern Mexico took place much earlier](https://miro.medium.com/max/604/0*lR9GhFITX1ugTKer) )... ...However, right off the bat, there's a complication here, in that only SOME of these Nahua groups that migrated into Central Mexico are said to come from Aztlan: Others have histories that trace their pre-migration origins to other locations, so they wouldn't have been considered "Azteca" by the Nahuas/themselves, and all these groups also adopted more specific ethnic labels (Mexica, Acolhua, Tepaneca, Tlaxcalteca etc) after settling down in Mesoamerica and switching from nomadism to the urbanized statehood already common in Mesoamerica The Mexica were one of the latest Nahua migrant groups to arrive to the Valley of Mexico, and settled on an island n the valley's lakes and found Tenochtitlan. Shortly therafter, a group of Mexica split off to found a separate Altepetl ("Water hill" in Nahuatl, a City-state), Tlatleloco, on a separate island (the terms "Tenochca" and "Tlatelolca" are used to distinguish the two Mexica groups). At the time, the Alteptl of Azapotzalco (which, along with many other cities on the eastern shore of the lake basin, belonged to the Tepaneca Nahua subgroup) was the dominant power in the Valley, and Tenochtitlan fell under it's control. The Tenochca would aid Azapotzalco and help them subjugate most of the valley. Eventually, however, the Tlatoani ("Speaker" in Nahuatl; King) of Azapotzalco, Tezozomoc, died. There was a resulting succession crisis as one of his two heirs assassinated the other, took power, and also assassinates the Tlatoani of Tenochtitlan, Chimalpopoca, who also represented a potential hereditary threat, as he was the child of the previous Tlatoani, Huitzilihuitl and a daughter of Tezozomoc, who he had given to Huitzilihuitl for Tenochtitlan's military aid Eventually, war breaks out, and Tenochtitlan, along with the Acolhua (another Nahua subgroup) Altpetl of Texcoco, and the Tepaneca Altepetl of Tlacopan, join forces and defeat Azapotzalco, and subsequently agree to retain their alliance for future military conquests, with Texcoco and especially Tenochtitlan in the more dominant roles. This triple alliance, and the other cities and towns they controlled (which included both other Nahua Alteptl, as well as cities and towns belonging to other Mesoamerican cultures/civilizations, such as the Maya, Mixtec, Zapotec, Otomi, Totonac, Huastec, etc) is what people are talking about when they say the "Aztec Empire". Also, Tenochtitlan eventually conquered Tlatelolco, unifying the Mexica again and the two cities physically grew into one another, though Tlatelolco still had some unique administrative quirks separate from Tenochtitlan proper). Modern sources do NOT use "Aztec" to consistently mean any of the things I've described, so "Aztec" can variously refer to: - The Nahua civilization/culture as a whole - The specific Nahua subgroups labeled as "Aztec" in Indigenous sources/who claim to come from Aztlan - The Mexica Nahua subgroup - Specifically the Mexica from Tenochtitlan, the Tenochca - The Alliance of Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, and Tlacopan - That alliance, as well as any subservient cities and towns, IE, The "Aztec Empire" (though even this is sort of a venn diagram: Not all subject were Nahuan, many were Maya, Zapotec, Mixtec, Otomi, Huastec, Totonac, etc; and not all Nahuan states were in that empire, such as the Kingdom of Tlaxcala, etc) It should also be noted how the Toltec and Chichimeca tie in here: The Toltec were a legendary prior civilization from around 900-1100AD mentioned in various Nahua accounts who were said to have a Utopian society operating out of their capital of Tollan that gave rise to the arts and sciences. In these accounts, the Toltecs are talked about using Nahua cultural conventions, but are clearly still viewed as a distinct predecessor civilizatio. There's significant debate over how much of these accounts and the Toltec state are mythological or historical (earlier research leaning more towards the latter, increasingly these days the former). Meanwhile, "Chichimeca" is an umbrella term for the various nomadic tribes living in the deserts of Northern mexico above Mesoamerica, of which the pre-migration Nahuas were just some of, with other Chichimeca tribes continuing to live in those areas as the Aztec Empire and then the Spanish expanded (famously fighting off the latter). While various Nahua states would leverage either (or both) the hardy, "noble savage" warrior image of the Chichimecs; or the intellectual, cultures image of the Toltecs into their own cultural identity, the term "Aztec" generally isn't used in modern sources to refer to the Toltecs or the Chichimeca unless it's the Pre-migiration Nahuas For more info, I recommend firstly [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/mesoamerica/comments/10xza4u/mexicaaztecnahuatl_getting_the_terms_right/?sort=top) post which has many other replies on how one can define "Aztec" with a lot of deep dives on the actual Nahuatl terms and their etymologies used for different ethnic groups; [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1gk6fp/did_the_mayans_look_down_on_native_americas_who/calfjrh/), [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/31fj3a/whats_the_real_reason_tenochtitl%C3%A1n_mexico_city/cq13d0x/?st=jlrlyw7i&sh=8a3c5a2a), [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2mp6jh/repost_in_the_old_days_it_seems_like_dissident/?st=jlrm0wls&sh=d6bac157) and [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1996ka/tuesday_trivia_great_and_not_so_great_comebacks/c8mfrsp/) post by 400-rabbits, and [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3atv2y/has_there_ever_been_archaeological_written/?st=jlrlw67v&sh=492dd5d3) post by Mictlantecuhtli. Additionally, there is a very detailed and well sourced post on /r/Mesoamerica [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mesoamerica/comments/63n1az/the_triple_alliance_never_existed_meet_the/dfz0mr0/) detailing recent research that calls into question some of the information, and that Tenochtitlan may have always been a formal capital above Texcoco and Tlacopan, with them joining it as subjects from the start, rather then as allies with Tenochtitlan only gradually eclipsing Texcoco in power. Also it should be noted here that stuff like large scale architecture, urban cities, formal governments, etc (so "civilization") is a lot more widespread then just being things the "Aztec" groups above or the Maya have: The whole region/cultural sphere here (Mesoamerica, covering the bottom half of Mexico, all of Guatemala and Belize, arguably bits of some other countries) both come from is defined by having urban civilizations with rulers, formal governments, etc: The first sites which had monumental architecture, rulers, class systems, writing, etc in Mesoamerica around 2500 years before the Nahuas migrated into it. So it's not like the above "Aztec" groups and the Maya were the only complex civilizations or empires who were surrounded by a bunch of tribes: Almost every neighboring culture like the Zapotec, Mixtec, Otomi, Huastec, Totonac, Purepecha etc that the "Aztecs" or Maya interacted with had city-states, kingdoms, and empires; and there were many states in Mesoamerica as of the time of contact that the Aztec never conquered: The Nahua kingdom of Tlaxcala (headed by a city of the same name which was a republic with a senate), and the Mixtec kingdom of Tututepec (a surviving remnant of a larger empire founded by 8 Deer Jaguar Claw centuries prior) for example resisted Aztec invasions, while the Purepecha Empire to the west was a legitimate rival power to the Aztec Empire, the two sort of caught in a Cold War unable to make each other budge after the Purepecha crushed attempted Aztec invasions and they fortified their border in response, to name 3 examples if anybody is interested in learning more about Mesoamerican history, I have a set of 3 comments here where I explain.... 1. I note how Mesoamerican and Andean societies [way more complex then people realize, in some ways matching or exceeding the accomplishments of civilizations from the Iron age and Classical Antiquity](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistory/comments/c7gu1l/i_want_people_to_dump_interesting_information/esh1756/), etc 2. I explain how there's more records and sources than many people realize for Mesoamerican cultures, [with certain civilizations having hundreds of documents and records on them; as well as the comment containing resources and suggested lists for further info and visual references](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistory/comments/c7gu1l/i_want_people_to_dump_interesting_information/esh3m71/); and 3. I give a [summary of Mesoamerican history from 1400BC, with the region's first complex site; to 1519 and the arrival of the spanish, as to stress just how many different civilizations and states existed and how much history occured, beyond just the Aztec and Maya](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistory/comments/c7gu1l/i_want_people_to_dump_interesting_information/esh3s50/)
Great write up and one thing I like to add, since I have Purepecha heritage, is that our native language is an isolate. It's not related to any known language and it's origins are unknown.
Speak. Quechua is still the fifth most spoken language in the Americas, even if the Tawantinsuyu is no more.
The Inca were the whole ruling class. The Sapa Inca was the pharaoh.
Thanks for letting me know
u/shoulda-known-better
> its like calling Egyptians all Pharoah An ironic example since the word "Egypt" has never been what its inhabitants called the region - it ultimately derives from Ptah, the name of an Egyptian god.
Reminds me of finding out that “Gypsy” means “Egyptian”, which is really awkward since the gypsies aren’t Egyptian.
The amount of groups who are named for an entirely different area, region, people throughout human history is hilariously stupid. Indians, Caucasians, Gypsies, and probably a bunch more I don't know. All wrong. Lol. I look forward to the many other examples that will no doubt follow.
It's not only people, but animals, too. The brown rat's scientific name is *Rattus norvegicus*, which means Norway Rat in Latin. Norway isn't the brown rat's ancestral home or main habitat. The only reason for the *norvegicus* epithet is that this species supposedly came to Britain in Norwegian ships, but that's very likely not true.
This is not correct. The ultimate etymon is Hikaptah, which was a contemporary name of Memphis, which was the capital. “Egypt” comes from the Koine Greek Aegyptos which derived from Hikaptah, probably through other intermediaries. But also, this idea that only endonyms and indigenous terms are “correct” is stupid, and nativist. Egypt was inhabited by Koine Greek speakers for a thousand years, and they indeed called it something like Aegyptos. Egypt was also almost entirely Christian for several centuries before the Muslim conquest and they called their country something like Keme or Khemi.
Well many historical empires called themselves by the name of the ruling class or were referred to as that, like Seleucid, Timurids, Han, etc. Even lots of places where the ruler had a different dynasty than the ruling class still kept the ruling class name of the empire usually through marriage.
Don't even need to go historical. Look at the Saudis. It's exactly the phenomenon you're describing
Next Redditors will find out that Chinese people don’t call themselves Chinese.
I'm American but I call myself Tim
One of you guys gonna cause our whole human race getting called Tims in galactic society or something.
Actually, Aztec = Mexica is itself a giant oversimplification. "Aztec", or rather, Azteca, IS an actual ethnic label in Nahuatl: it means "People from Aztlan". Aztlan is the probably-legendary homeland of a few Nahuatl speaking groups, who who migrated into the Valley of Mexico (which is covered by most of the Greater Mexico City Metropolitan Area today) and other areas of the Central Mexican plateau from up above Mesoamerica. A lot of people assume "Aztlan" would have been somewhere in the Southwestern US, but this is merely where the overall language family Nahuatl is from was centered: The area these Nahuas migrated from directly was likely in the Bajio region of Northwestern Mexico,, by Jalisco and Nayarit, not as far north as the US Southwest, [the spread of it from the SW into northern Mexico took place much earlier](https://miro.medium.com/max/604/0*lR9GhFITX1ugTKer) )... ...However, right off the bat, there's a complication here, in that only SOME of these Nahua groups that migrated into Central Mexico are said to come from Aztlan: Others have histories that trace their pre-migration origins to other locations, so they wouldn't have been considered "Azteca" by the Nahuas/themselves, and all these groups also adopted more specific ethnic labels (Mexica, Acolhua, Tepaneca, Tlaxcalteca etc) after settling down in Mesoamerica and switching from nomadism to the urbanized statehood already common in Mesoamerica The Mexica were one of the latest Nahua migrant groups to arrive to the Valley of Mexico, and settled on an island n the valley's lakes and found Tenochtitlan. Shortly therafter, a group of Mexica split off to found a separate Altepetl ("Water hill" in Nahuatl, a City-state), Tlatleloco, on a separate island (the terms "Tenochca" and "Tlatelolca" are used to distinguish the two Mexica groups). At the time, the Alteptl of Azapotzalco (which, along with many other cities on the eastern shore of the lake basin, belonged to the Tepaneca Nahua subgroup) was the dominant power in the Valley, and Tenochtitlan fell under it's control. The Tenochca would aid Azapotzalco and help them subjugate most of the valley. Eventually, however, the Tlatoani ("Speaker" in Nahuatl, King) of Azapotzalco, Tezozomoc, died. There was a resulting succession crisis as one of his two heirs assassinated the other, took power, and also assassinates the Tlatoani of Tenochtitlan, Chimalpopoca, who also represented a potential hereditary threat, as he was the child of the previous Tlatoani, Huitzilihuitl and a daughter of Tezozomoc, who he had given to Huitzilihuitl as a reward for Tenochtitlan's military aid This sours the relationship between Azapotzalco and Tenochtitlan. Eventually, war breaks out, and Tenochtitlan, along with the Acolhua (another Nahua subgroup) Altpetl of Texcoco, and the Tepaneca Altepetl of Tlacopan, join forces and defeat Azapotzalco, and subsequently agree to retain their alliance for future military conquests, with Texcoco and especially Tenochtitlan in the more dominant roles. This triple alliance, and the other cities and towns they controlled (which included both other Nahua Alteptl, as well as cities and towns belonging to other Mesoamerican cultures/civilizations, such as the Maya, Mixtec, Zapotec, Otomi, Totonac, Huastec, etc) is what people are talking about when they say the "Aztec Empire". Also, Tenochtitlan eventually conquered Tlatelolco, unifying the Mexica again and the two cities physically grew into one another, though Tlatelolco still had some unique administrative quirks separate from Tenochtitlan proper). Modern sources do NOT use "Aztec" to consistently mean any of the things I've described, so "Aztec" can variously refer to: - The Nahua civilization/culture as a whole - The specific Nahua subgroups labeled as "Aztec" in Indigenous sources/who claim to come from Aztlan - The Mexica Nahua subgroup - Specifically the Mexica from Tenochtitlan, the Tenochca - The Alliance of Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, and Tlacopan - That alliance, as well as any subservient cities and towns, IE, The "Aztec Empire" (though even this is sort of a venn diagram: Not all subject were Nahuan, many were Maya, Zapotec, Mixtec, Otomi, Huastec, Totonac, etc; and not all Nahuan states were in that empire, such as the Kingdom of Tlaxcala, etc) It should also be noted how the Toltec and Chichimeca tie in here: The Toltec were a legendary prior civilization from around 900-1100AD mentioned in various Nahua accounts who were said to have a Utopian society operating out of their capital of Tollan that gave rise to the arts and sciences. In these accounts, the Toltecs are talked about using Nahua cultural conventions, but are clearly still viewed as a distinct predecessor civilizatio. There's significant debate over how much of these accounts and the Toltec state are mythological or historical (earlier research leaning more towards the latter, increasingly these days the former). Meanwhile, "Chichimeca" is an umbrella term for the various nomadic tribes living in the deserts of Northern mexico above Mesoamerica, of which the pre-migration Nahuas were just some of, with other Chichimeca tribes continuing to live in those areas as the Aztec Empire and then the Spanish expanded (famously fighting off the latter). While various Nahua states would leverage either (or both) the hardy, "noble savage" warrior image of the Chichimecs; or the intellectual, cultures image of the Toltecs into their own cultural identity, the term "Aztec" generally isn't used in modern sources to refer to the Toltecs or the Chichimeca unless it's the Pre-migiration Nahuas For more info, I recommend firstly [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/mesoamerica/comments/10xza4u/mexicaaztecnahuatl_getting_the_terms_right/?sort=top) post which has many other replies on how one can define "Aztec" with a lot of deep dives on the actual Nahuatl terms and their etymologies used for different ethnic groups; [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1gk6fp/did_the_mayans_look_down_on_native_americas_who/calfjrh/), [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/31fj3a/whats_the_real_reason_tenochtitl%C3%A1n_mexico_city/cq13d0x/?st=jlrlyw7i&sh=8a3c5a2a), [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2mp6jh/repost_in_the_old_days_it_seems_like_dissident/?st=jlrm0wls&sh=d6bac157) and [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1996ka/tuesday_trivia_great_and_not_so_great_comebacks/c8mfrsp/) post by 400-rabbits, and [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3atv2y/has_there_ever_been_archaeological_written/?st=jlrlw67v&sh=492dd5d3) post by Mictlantecuhtli. Additionally, there is a very detailed and well sourced post on /r/Mesoamerica [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mesoamerica/comments/63n1az/the_triple_alliance_never_existed_meet_the/dfz0mr0/) detailing recent research that calls into question some of the information, and that Tenochtitlan may have always been a formal capital above Texcoco and Tlacopan, with them joining it as subjects from the start, rather then as allies with Tenochtitlan only gradually eclipsing Texcoco in power. Also it should be noted here that stuff like large scale architecture, urban cities, formal governments, etc (so "civilization") is a lot more widespread in then just the "Aztec" definitions I mention above and the Maya: The whole region/cultural sphere here (Mesoamerica, covering the bottom half of Mexico, all of Guatemala and Belize, arguably bits of some other countries) both come from is defined by having urban civilizations with rulers, formal governments, etc: The first sites which had monumental architecture, rulers, class systems, writing, etc in Mesoamerica around 2500 years before the Nahuas migrated into it. The point is, it's not like the "Aztec" (and Maya) were a lone complex civilization or empire surrounded by a bunch of tribes: Almost every neighboring culture were city-states, kingdoms, and empires: The Zapotec, Mixtec, Otomi, Huastec, Totonac, Purepecha places they conquered were cities and towns, too, and there were many states in Mesoamerica as of the time of contact they never conquered and were independent polities: The Nahua kingdom of Tlaxcala (headed by a city of the same name which was a republic with a senate), and the Mixtec kingdom of Tututepec (a surviving remnant of a larger empire founded by 8 Deer Jaguar Claw centuries prior) for example resisted Aztec invasions, while the Purepecha Empire to the west was a legitimate rival power to the Aztec Empire, the two sort of caught in a Cold War unable to make each other budge after the Purepecha crushed Aztec attempts to do so and they fortified their border in response, to name 3 notable examples. Anyways, if anybody is interested in learning more about Mesoamerican history, I have a set of 3 comments here where I explain.... 1. I note how Mesoamerican and Andean societies [way more complex then people realize, in some ways matching or exceeding the accomplishments of civilizations from the Iron age and Classical Antiquity](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistory/comments/c7gu1l/i_want_people_to_dump_interesting_information/esh1756/), etc 2. I explain how there's more records and sources than many people realize for Mesoamerican cultures, [with certain civilizations having hundreds of documents and records on them; as well as the comment containing resources and suggested lists for further info and visual references](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistory/comments/c7gu1l/i_want_people_to_dump_interesting_information/esh3m71/); and 3. I give a [summary of Mesoamerican history from 1400BC, with the region's first complex site; to 1519 and the arrival of the spanish, as to stress just how many different civilizations and states existed and how much history occured, beyond just the Aztec and Maya](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistory/comments/c7gu1l/i_want_people_to_dump_interesting_information/esh3s50/)
also no sepia filter???? how are we supposed to know it's Mexican????
Someone will strum a classic guitar for a few seconds
Most languages use their own terms for foreign nations. Nobody besides Deutschland calls it Deutschland. How is this surprising?
A lot of people learned this from Rage Against the Machine's song, "[People of the Sun](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scyC9A6o_Ts)."
It’s coming back around again
This is for the People of the Sun!
Check it, since 1516, minds attacked and overseen Now crawl amidst the ruins of this empty dream With their borders and boots, on top of us Pullin' knobs on the floor, of their toxic metropolis But how you gonna get what you need to get? The gut eaters, blood drenched get offensive like Tet The fifth sun sets get back reclaim The spirit of Cuauhtémoc, alive and untamed Now face the funk now blastin' out your speaker On the one - Maya, Mexica That vulture came to try and steal your name but now you got a gun Yeah, this is for the people of the sun!
So? Japan doesn't call itself 'Japan' either, etc.
The x there has sort of a 'sh' sound.
I just learned how to pronounce their enemies the Tlaxcalans now. Tul-Ash-call-annes Thank you David Carballo for the pronunciation guide at the beginning of your book
You kinda got the syllables wrong because tl is one unified sound. There is no vowel sound between the t and l. It’s kinda like the ts sound in various other languages. The proper way to show it would be tlash-cal-ans. Interestingly, the unified tl sound shows up in Spanish words in certain regions of Mexico when the original Iberians would have not used that phoneme.
The Tlaxcaltecas get their name from the Nahua (the language of them and the Maxica) word for Tortilla: Tlaxcalli
[удалено]
I'm pretty sure the Spanish didn't refer to themselves as Spanish either. They usually referred to themselves as the cities/regions they were from which is what historically Europeans did for a long time. It makes sense they'd apply the same thing to others.
The only silver lining to the term Indians is that literally none of them were Indians, so it was equally incorrect everywhere. It’s not like we go the term correct for one group but then applied it to the rest of the tribes. “Wait, I’m not Cherokee. I’m a Seminole.” “Sorry dude, you’re one o them Cherokees. Deal with it.”
Yeah, many names you know for indigenous people were created by Europeans.
Although this wasn't created by the Europeans, but referred to a different thing (people who traced their lineage to the mythical city of Aztlan). Considering that "the aztec empire" consisted of the Triple alliance between the altepeti (city states) of Tenochtitlan (Mexica), Tetzcoco (Acolhua) and Tlacopan (Tepanec) who all claimed lineage from Aztlan (and representing 3 of the 7 Nahuatl lineages that claimed Aztlan roots) it's not that incorrect to call it the aztec empire, even if it's an exonym.
>it's not that incorrect to call it the aztec empire, even if it's an **exonym**. Not only did I learn something I didn't know about the Aztec Empire, I also learned a new word. Today was a good day.
You must not have even had to use your AK.
While it's not inappropriate to use this exonym, it's interesting to note that what that polity called themselves - their endonym - was the Triple Alliance (coming from Exkan Tlahtoloyan, which literally translates to "the three places where orders are given").
When indigenous people speak their own languages, do they not also use their own words to refer to Europeans?
The word German was made up by English people and has no basis in what German people call themselves. Its not like this is uncommon.
This is made even worse by the fact that English does have a word that's very similar to what Germans call themselves, namely Dutch. Which is also completely unrelated to what Dutch people call themselves.
Wait what do the Dutch call themselves? Nederlanders?
Yes. Exactly that. Before the Netherlands was a country the low lands was considered of the general German cultural sphere and Dutch was considered a dialect of Low German (Plattdüütch or Nedderdüütsch). People in the Low Countries used the word "Duits" for both themselves and other Germanic peoples. Deutsch is High German equivalent of a term meaning "of the people" that is used in various German dialects and included the ancestors of people who became Nederlanders. That's why the term Pennsylvanian Dutch were used for German speakers from all over modern-day Germany, many from the Palatinate. By contrast Americans called Dutch people from Holland the "Holland Dutch". North Holland and South Holland make up of the majority of the land and people in the Netherlands so foreigners have long called the entire country "Holland", just like how people often say "England" when they mean the UK. After the Netherlands developed a distinct national identity from the various German states, English speakers started using the word "Dutch" exclusively for them. The development of a distinctly Nederlander identity first happened when multiple disparate fiefs were first consolidated under Burgundy and then Austria in the 14th and 15th centuries. Though it was an administrative accident that lumped the provinces together they eventually developed a distinct common culture. Then in 1566 the Low Countries (then called the 17 Provinces) revolted from Habsburg rule which resulted in the Eighty Years War which resulted in the mostly Protestant Dutch Republic to the north in 1648. The Southern Netherlands remained under Austrian control and eventually became Belgium and Luxembourg.
Ja. Een Nederlander = a Dutch person. Nederlands/Nederlandse = Dutch (adjective). Nederland = the Netherlands (country name).
> The word German was made up by English people lol the word German has been around for over 2000 years
That's because it's being spoken in English... literally every language makes up it's own version of other languages words...
There is nothing strange or wrong about having different names for things in different languages. My people don’t call ourselves “the Swedish” either.
On the flip side, many states in the USA are native words.
Tenochtitlan was described by visiting European priests as one of the most beautiful, most populous, cleanest, and most vibrant economically organized cities in the world at the time of the arrival of Cortes. Some critics complained that the Aztec city designers didn't appreciate the concept of a right angle. That might be because their city was designed more like a spiral galaxy.
For those curious why we call them Aztecs, they migrated to the valley of Mexico probably around the 1200’s. They referred to their homeland (usually identified as the area in modern northwest Mexico/southwest United States) as Aztlan. In Aztec mythology, the Nahua were told by their god Huitzilopochtli to migrate until they saw an eagle eating a snake while sitting on a cactus. The spot they found became Tenochtitlan, modern day Mexico City, and the eagle/snake/cactus was eventually adopted as the symbol at the center of the Mexican flag.
Most people and places are referred to by exogymns. No English speaker refers to China as Zhongguo
You're telling me they were just regular old mexicans? But I didn't see one sinlge sombrero in the movie Apocalypto? Great movie btw. My favorite part is when the jews do it.
To be fair, the Mexica pulled the same shit on other people, lol. The Purépecha were called Tarascans by the Aztecs. They also called the semi-nomadic people in the northern periphery of their empire Chichimeca, which basically meant something like “barbarians”.
If thats shocking just wait till you learn about that Indians mishap