Let me post the the important part of this article and dissect it:
Here is what a renowned expert in the subject and a native Mexicans'
sympathizer, Henry B. Parkes, had to say in his classic text "A History
of Mexico" (The Riverside Press, Cambridge, 1938):
"In spite of their linguistic and political differences the Indian
peoples of Mexico sprang from the same racial stock and had similar
physical and mental characteristics. [...] They were easily contented
with natural pleasures [...]. They had little of the romantic urge
towards novelty and excess, and never having developed any strong sense
of personal individuality, they rated human life very cheaply. For them
the individual counted for little, and the welfare of the tribe was
everything. When they submitted to conquest their resistance would
usually be silent and passive but more stubborn and tenacious than that
of other races; they would either absorb the intruder into their own
society by their refusal to change their way of life, or rise against
him finally in rebellions which were long delayed but very persistent.
With a bias towards the concrete, they were uninterested in the
abstractions of metaphysics, and had little of that capacity for seeing
the general in the particular which leads to scientific discovery
[...]. Their loyalty was not to the abstractions of society and the
state but to the neighbors and kinsfolk who comprised their tribe and
to the chieftains who embodied it."
1.- How the HELL does he know such intimate details about cultures he
never experienced? Most of these groups dissapeared after the
Conquista, and the ones who survived were culturally changed by the
Spanish.
2.- "They were easily contented with natural pleasures". Again, how the
HELL does he know this?? And the Aztec and Mayan empires where hardly
"contented with natural pleasures". They built large, complex
civilizations, full of culture, politics, war, art, etc. Hardly
"contented".
3.- "They had little of the romantic urge towards novelty and excess".
Right. Tell that to the Aztec nobles who had slaves run up to the
volcano to get snow to make desserts, or who had fish delivered from
the coast all the way to Tenochtitlan by runners. And where do you
think Mexican food evolved from? Mexican food is FULL of "novelty and
excess", are you kidding??
4.- "they rated human life very cheaply". Maybe, maybe. Just like most
other tribes, kindgoms, empires, and human groups in general. Rating
human life cheaply is a very HUMAN trait. Americans see life as very
cheap. Maybe not other AMERICAN lives, but certainly the lives of other
peoples.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/2004/01sanctionsworth.htm
5.- "With a bias towards the concrete, they were uninterested in the
abstractions of metaphysics". This statement is SOOO ignorant. So
ignorant. The spiritual traditions of indigenous Mexico are deep and
complex, so is their mythology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_mythology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_mythology
Add to that the Zapotec tradition, Toltec tradition, Mixtec tradition,
Yaqui tradtion, etc etc etc. Fool
6.- "and had little of that capacity for seeing the general in the
particular which leads to scientific discovery". Well HOT DAMN I would
LOVE to know how this guy reached THIS particular conclusion! I mean, I
figure you would have to live at least MONTHS with a human group before
discovering that they have limited inductive capabilities!

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Mayan_mathematics.html
7.-"Their loyalty was not to the abstractions of society and the state
but to the neighbors and kinsfolk who comprised their tribe and to the
chieftains who embodied it." This statement proves beyond a resonable
doubt that the author has limited mental capacities. He states that
they where not loyal to society, but to its tribe. Well guess what
EINSTEIN, for such small groups, THE TRIBE IS THE SOCIETY!!DUH! And if
to the state you add the chieftans, guess what? you get a STATE!! Such
APPALLING contradictions! I can't even believe it!
Jim, modern Mexicans are not indians, nor Spaniards. We are MEXICANS.
Just like American anglosaxons are not Saxons, Irish Americans are not
Celts, and African Americans are not Namibian. Get a clue.
Come on Jim, you are too easy. Throw me a hard one; make it a
challenge, I'm getting bored here