Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
I agree. I'm struggling to justify that Tenochtitlan is the same thing as Mexico City if we don't say the same about many other places throughout North America. Any U.S. city that was founded pre-Revolutionary War is most likely located in a region that was already occupied by indigenous Americans.
|
There's a continuity in the urban history between Tenochtitlan and Mexico City. The Spaniards first arrived in the Aztec city, and attempted to occupy and gain influence over it through the existing ruler. They then lay siege to it, conquered it, renamed it Mexico and started building their own buildings on the ruins of those that were destroyed. The street grid in the centre of the city was established by the Aztec, Catholic churches were built to replace temples, etc.
It's been continuously inhabited as a
city, in the exact same location since 1325.
In the case of Manhattan, or other North American cities that were built on or near the sites of former indigenous settlements, they lack that same sense of continuity. The Iroquois towns of Teiaiagon and Ganatsekwyagon aren't what
became Toronto, for example - nor was the French-founded Fort Rouillé. Today's Toronto was founded as the town of York, by the British. They were completely separate settlements who's long-abandoned sites were eventually swallowed up by Toronto's sprawl.