It is understandable that this writer in particular was surprised and uncomfortable with these habits and lifestyles, but he let his distaste bleed too much into his work, tainting the readers point of view also. Is it really good history then, if there was never any attempt at being unbiased or at the very least acknowledging the misconceptions the author was working with? How can this narrative of distaste be corrected by future historians.

monstrous ritual is the most remembered part, though the intricacies of how this came to be and how it melded with the social grace is wildly ignored. It is monstrous to outsiders, but why isn't to them, and how did it come to be?

Finding information on the culture of peoples who were not only killed, colonized, and had their narrative rewritten by westerners, but also had little resources or even little need to document their culture to begin with, must have created a difficult task.

The author is using the word Aztec for a much broader group than those living in just these two cities, but did groups outside of these two cities refer to themselves as Mexica?

I didn't realize that there were twin cities, I had only ever heard of one large one that was the center of power and culture.

I am so pumped for this.