webdiplomacy.net

So you would also concede that the mesoamerican societies with cities and writing were states?

They were states at one point, but there wasn't much left of them by the time the conquistadors arrived.

Nevertheless I don't understand what difference it makes on the distinction between immigration and colonization.

A select few societies in the Mesoamericas classified as states but they were incredibly flimsy and lacked regional unity which made them easy to overthrow by a coalition of unified Spaniards and their own subjects.

It doesn't make a difference in that semantic argument, but it does clearly demonstrate a deliberate, disingenuous downplaying of the organisation, stratification and relative development of native societies when it's convenient to pretend that they had no states of their own.

I just find it interesting how far individual people are willing to go to add fuel to the fires of their historical victim narratives.

I mean take that up with the historians that have been making that distinction for decades upon decades.

What's a historical victim narrative?

Where certain people portray historical events a certain way to make certain groups look like poor defenseless, primitive, ignorant lambs in order to better guilt people in the modern day.