Talk:Aztecs/Terminology-2

Scholarly corrupt term of AZTECS

When are thinking, intelligent people going to relegate the false term Aztecs to the recycle bin and return the rightful and historically correct name "Mexica" ( Meh shee ka ) back to the Mexican collective. The "coined " name A*^@#% is not only a fabricated term but even more insidious, is the manner which it is used to rob the modern Mexican of his/her cultural soul and link to an acient time of accomplishment and achievement. Rather, it used in tandem with those childlike crude pictographs, (now determined to be painted on Spano/European parchment ) to bash the Modern Mexican relentlessly to codify the Spanish invasion of a people whose level of human endeavor was the equal of the worlds- thought to be "Great Civilizations". I would agree that the primary responsiblilty lies with their namesake but first things first. We must begin with the first step.The term "Ancient Mexicans" MUST become the norm when speaking of Pre-Euro America. Remember, America, Canada the Mexican Border are historically speaking nascent terms. The ancient Mexican language Nahuatl was at one time used as a common language and second language by Native and Tribal peoples from Central America to the Oregon border and beyond.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.197.134.210 (talk • contribs).

Stop being so hysterical. Apparently this is the Amerindian version of Afrocentrism. The term Aztec for those you call Mexica is as valid as calling the Japanese Japanese rather than Nippon-jin. The word for the empire and culture which was based in modern day Mexico City is AZTEC. Get used to it.

P.S. The same way Turin, Italy should be Turin, not Torino any more than Italy should be renamed Italia in English. Chiss Boy 16:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia, at its best, reflects scholarly consensus. It does not attempt to enforce a particular view. The claim that some consider "Aztec" to be an insidious fabrication should be researched, incorporated into the article, and properly cited. The claim should not be used as a basis for changing the article unless scholarly consensus among anthropologists makes the change desirable. --Dystopos 17:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The modern use of aztec, versus mexica is explained in the article. More than a fabrication, it has to do with the search of identity of a nation. Portilla has an interesting reflection on this: Miguel Leon Portilla. (2000). "Aztecas, disquisiciones sobre un gentilicio". Estudios de la cultura nahuatl. There si nothing insiduous, in it. Nanahuatzin 19:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite certian you're right. But if the idea that it is insidious is a significant minority point of view, the facts surrounding those claims should be addressed in the article. --Dystopos 19:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

What the hell does "Aztec" mean?

The first line of the article states:

The Aztecs is a collective term used for all of the Pre-Columbian Mesoamerican peoples under the control of the Mexica, founders of Tenochtitlan, and their two principal allies ...

But the Nomenclature section makes it seem like "Aztec" and "Mexica" are synonyms, and the empire was populated by more than just Mexica. It then says that:

In this article, the term "Mexica" is used to refer to the Mexica people up until the time of the formation of the Triple Alliance. After this, the term "Aztecs" is used to refer to the peoples who made up the Triple Alliance.

If that's the case, then why does the article focus so much on the Mexica, not pointing out anywhere that the other two thirds of the Triple Alliance were not Mexica: Texcoco was an Acolhua city and Tlacopan was Tepanec.

Finally, we have this line:

In 1810 Alexander von Humboldt originated the modern usage of "Aztec" as a collective term applied to all the people linked by trade, custom, religion, and language to the Mexica state and the Triple Alliance.

Which sounds like he probably means Aztec to refer to the Nahuas. (I'm not sure if he would've included the Tlaxcalans though.)

So which is it?

• Aztec = the inhabitants of the entire empire?
• Aztec = the Triple Alliance?
• Aztec = Mexica?
• Aztec = Tenochca?
• Aztec = Nahua?

I'd almost suggest ditching the term, not because it's "scholarly corrupt" as someone else said, but because it seems too vague to be useful. We really need to get our definitions sorted. --Ptcamn 18:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• What does "Romans" mean? --Dystopos 23:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The term doesn't have one single definition, that doesn't mean the term should be ditched however it just means that its different uses should be mentioned. Etymologically aztec should be used for the tribes from Aztlán, this includes the Tlaxcalteca. However due to the usage where the Triple alliance has been equated with the aztec empire it has also acquired the meaning of denoting the primary members of the alliance. The cities under their control are not usually called aztec although it is often said that they were under aztec control. I think the prevalent usage in modern times is to refer to 1. in history/archeology when referring collectively to the members of the triple alliance 2. in linguistics when referring to the languages of the aztecan branch of uto-aztec (synonymously with Nahua). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maunus (talk • contribs) 09:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

I'd definitely keep the term. "Aztec" has a nice ring to it. But what have they ever done for us?

I read somewhere that some spaish guy said that all people that were linked to Tenochtitlan by religion, trading, or language, were Aztecs. Must've been ALOT of Aztec then... 219.89.43.227 05:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)