#decolonize

The virtues of this social art did not escape the Jesuits, who in 1636 remarked on Wendat government as follows: "They have a gentleness almost incredible for savages. They are not easily annoyed, and moreover, if they have received wrong from anyone they often conceal the resentment they feel –– at least, one finds here very few who make a public display of anger and vengeance. They maintain themselves in this perfect harmony by frequent visits; by help they give one another in times of sickness, by feasts and by alliances. When they are not busy with their fields, hunting, fishing, or trading, they are less in their own houses than in those of their friends; if they fall sick, or desire anything for their health, there is a rivalry as to who will show himself most obliging. If they have something better than usual … they make a feast for their friends, and hardly ever eat it alone." Next, here are two observations of Trigger [a Canadian historian] on chiefship, on the personal qualities needed to be a Chief, and on some of the social commitments and obligations implicated by such role. "[Wendat] Chiefs had no constitutional authority to coerce their followers or to force their will on anyone. Moreover, individual Wendats were sensitive about their honour and intolerant of external constraints, and friends and relatives would rally to the support of someone who believed himself insulted by a Chief. Overbearing behaviour by a Chief might, therefore, encourage violent reaction and lead to conflicts within or between lineages. In the long run, Chiefs who behaved arrogantly or foolishly tended to alienate support and would be deposed by their own lineages. The ideal [Wendat] Chief was a wise and brave man who understood his followers and won their support by means of his generosity, persuasiveness, and balanced judgment." Again, Bruce Trigger on leadership: "Being a Chief, especially a civil Chief (as opposed to Chief of defence, or “war” Chief), required the expenditure of considerable time and wealth. They were expected to entertain their supporters as well as to provide hospitality for visitors. They also had to travel considerable distances to attend meetings, sometimes in very bad weather. The Chief at whose house a meeting was held was obliged to provide food and entertainment for his visitors. This required him and his family to work harder than anyone else to produce the food that had to be given away to validate his public office. Likewise, most of the goods that Chiefs received as presents or from their control of trade routes had to be given away to maintain the reputation for generosity without which a Chief would have no support. The more influential a Chief, which meant the larger were the number of people in whose name he spoke, the greater was the scale on which he had to provide feasts and give away exotic goods."

Kukulkan is one of the three gods that was thought to have created the Earth. He is a serpent in his natural form and was responsible for teaching the Maya about such things as how to run a civilization, agriculture, and medicine. After a brief period of being on Earth Kukulcan returned to the ocean telling the Maya that he would return at some later date. This is the basis of this colonial lie. Cortes did not even have blue or green eyes or blonde or light hair, unlike the nobility of Peru and others, who they said were descended from these "gods". Look at the ceremonial costumes. They mean Quetzalcoatl was white as in paper white, non human, not "pink european colonizer white". It's a cultural memory that these masks are so often painted unnaturally white. They are depicting a species of alien whose atmosphere was damaged and did not require melanin the way humans do. Blue eyes, green eyes, red hair, are all mutations for human beings. They can happen in any human culture or race.