What do Mexicans think of la Malinche?

What do Mexicans think of la Malinche?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=GWtQznfkDHU
es.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Malinche
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>Malinche
nothing
>malinchismo
worst thing in this country

she's a whore. i wish i could go back in time when she was pregnant and split her open with an axe while cortes watches.

>malinchismo
What the hell is that?

Her spot in history is overrated. She wasn't the only person in Mesoamerica that could speak multiple languages. The groups that allied with Spaniards are the biggest traitors.

TlaxcaltecANO

How did they even learn Spanish in the first place?

who?

Tlaxcalans are the only group who like her

>traitor, self hater you sold your own people for a taste of something foreign

youtube.com/watch?v=GWtQznfkDHU

this

huh

CHI

Holy fuck I've never actually had the balls to watch this before. It's bad. I had to close it.

holy fuck lmao
kinda cute though, trudeau seems like a nice guy

why don't anyone accuse him of cultural appropriation?

because Canada and Trudeau is chad

Never thought of that

A shipwreck by the name of Jerónimo de Aguilar had spent near a decade living amongst the Maya and learned their language, Malintzin was valuable because she could translate from Maya to Nahuatl (Aztec)

>Her spot in history is overrated
That's arguable, Malintzin was certainly a key player as the main translator for Cortés, meaning she was the person responsible for conveying nuance and it is certain she became a trusted advisor, she held something of an elevated position and Cortés cared enough for her to guarantee something of a retirement for her, he certainly cared for his son with her.

It's difficult to say but a point can be made Spaniards would've been in a much different position had they not been able to communicate, and thus been unable to secure an alliance with the Tlaxcaltec, and if they had relied on translators loyal to the Tlatoani or hostile to them. The timeline would've certainly been different.

Like I've mentioned before it's a complex issue.

>The timeline would've certainly been different
Yeah, you would be in Spain instead of here

How did the Spainards defeat the Incans?

You could perfectly call Trudeau a malinchista, he says your Canadian culture in non existant so you need foreign one
That’s a text book definition of the term

No Mexican alive today would've been born, that particular divergence point means you throw out of whack all couplings, if your parents had gone to bed 15 minutes earlier the night you were conceived chances are it would've been a different spermatozoon to win the race. You're as much a product of this series of events as I am.

That was Pizarro, and it was even more of a cruel tale but as it hapenned, on the subject of divergence points in history, their work was largely facilitated by a civil war detonated by the death of the the Inca ruler Huáscar, who died from smallpox. The disease arrived even before the conquistadores did.

I've never heard him say that.

The Spanish conquest of the Americas sounds so much more interesting than how the English took over

>“There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada,” Trudeau said, concluding that he sees Canada as “the first post-national state.”

He’s kinda right though, we don’t have a core identity. We need to build one. Maybe he doesn’t get it but every ethnic group sticks to their own culture. Even if they live in Canada, they continue their traditions and customs from their native country or culture and they tend to stick to their own. For example, my Indian friend is expected to marry an Indian girl of similar status, it would be frowned upon if he married someone outside of their expectations.

He's not wrong, Canada exists as an extension to the states

One thing I forgot to add, pictured in OP is Frida Kahlo, not Malintzin, that's a painting by Rivera who added her as an Aztec woman just as a playful thing.

I thought the core identity of Canadians was British, obvious exceptions and American influence aside.

>Canada having any identity of any kind

>this thread again

Canada is cooler and less serious US

They hate her he name is used at an insult

Check the replies on any of the previous threads.

A filthy whore who should have been killed with her bastard

becaues it had more interesting people, well at least in the Valley of Mexico, the Yucatan Peninsula and the Andes.

It was, as are most conquests in history.

>2018
>Retards still believe that a 17 year old mayan (not aztec, not mexican) slave girl was responsible of the downfall of the aztecs.

Yucatec Mayans are Mexicans, that aside she's mostly attributed being a Nahua by most historians

Incorrect, the Mexican state is 196 years old.

>attributed being a Nahua by most historians
proofs?

"La Malinche fuer una mujer Nahua"
es.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Malinche
Literally even the most simple of monographs written on her? I would see a good case for questioning whether she actually was pipiltin as she claimed but a Nahua in the Empire's fringes being slaved by Maya makes a more plausible story than her being a born Maya slave who learned Nahuatl having no use for it.

>the Mexican state is 196 years old
And the Puuc Maya were heavily influenced by cultural centers in central Mexico, in post-Classic times they certainly saw Tenochtitlán as the most important center of power in their world. What is this revisionist view on history anyway? Mexican isn't the same as Mexicah, every single one of the original peoples in what is today Mexico is as Mexican as the Aztecs.

he's saying you shouldn't apply a modern nationality to the indigenous cultures

Why would he state "not Mexican" then? The term, as in "ancient Mexicans" is always used retroactively, Mexicans as such did not exist until the 1560's

The point is that people often interpret her "betrayal" as if she betrayed Mexico, as if the Mexican nation as we know it today existed back then, which is stupid.

It's arguably incorrect but not stupid, being indigenous identity is the basis to Mexican identity, it's even in the constitution, it's an understandable point of view. Mexico is a country in which people reading history books tend to relate more to the Native Americans than to the European conquerors, even if yes, we consider both peoples as our ancestors.

Mexicans may be neither but in the historical sense we are both. Anyway we are only discussing optics here, to each their own.