Our bad history in question,

http://www.ancient-origins.net/history/pre-columbian-murals-and-norse-sagas-suggest-vikings-met-aztecs-and-outcome-was-not-pretty-021084?nopaging=1

It starts off in the deep end and just wades around the bullshit. There's no testing the waters with a toe dip here before going head first in.

Did the Vikings visit Pre-Columbian Mexico?

In short, no. But I have a feeling you are going to concoct a fantastical tale to explain to me why they did.

The depiction of white people on Chichen Itza murals in the Temple of the Warriors probably represent Vikings

Or, and I’m throwing this out there, you don’t understand the conventions of Maya art and you are going to completely misinterpret things.

There are also three traditions of the Norse Sagas that mention that in 965 or 986 Ari Marson set sail from Ireland in an attempt to reach Greenland. The story has it that Marson’s ship ran into rough seas and a storm threw him off course. Within six days he had reached Mexico instead. The Eyrbggia saga and the voyage of Ari Marson may explain how the first white people got to the Yucatan.

Where’s the evidence Winters? While stories are great there needs to be some hard proof that the story is speaking the truth. And the story doesn’t even describe Yucatan, the Maya, or anywhere else in Mesoamerica. HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY WENT TO YUCATAN?! There's a lot of doubt (nothing solidly Viking has been found) on the settlement at Point Rosee and that is in Newfoundland where L'Anse aux Meadows is. And you're trying to tell me these Vikings just completely missed the US Eastern seaboard, missed the Caribbean, and arrived in Yucatan in six days?

Some researchers claim that the tribes joined the conquistadors’ in defeating the Aztecs because they represented a return of the “white lords”. However, most researchers say that this story about “white lords” was a myth created during the Spanish conquest. Restall wrote that: “The legend of the returning lords, originated during the Spanish-Mexica war in Cortés' reworking of Moctezuma's welcome speech, had by the 1550's merged with the Cortés-as-Quetzalcoatl legend that the Franciscans had started spreading in the 1530s.”

And yet you are going to ignore that? Really?

Murals in the temple depict black, white, and brown people. In some of these murals one can see whites fighting and in bondage to blacks.

No, what you are seeing are people in body paint. If you took time to make note of it, you would see that the black warriors have different color faces. And that your white prisoners have many horizontal lines. Unless these black Maya were capturing mummies, one has to consider that these markings are meant to portray something other than skin color. In fact, if we look at the mural as a whole (sorry, can’t find a large image that isn’t blurry) instead of this one small part, we see “white” people on a building in war costumes like the “black” people. You know why, Winters? Because the black figures were the ones doing the attacking. The white figures were the ones defending. But you wouldn't understand that if you had just looked at one part of one mural and ignored everything else.

In Esotericism of the Popol Vuh by Raphael Girard, one reads about the ‘Dance of the Giants’. This Mayan dance appears to represent a Pre-Columbian conflict between white and black people in Mexico.

This book is quite illuminating. In it, Girard discusses the Dance of the Black Giants. The dance of the Black Giants explains the reason why the other indigenous peoples joined the Spanish in destroying the Aztec nation. Girard's description of the Dance of the Giants is startling.

If you actually take a look at the chapter it makes no mention that these giants have white or black skin. They are merely called the White Giant and the Black Giant. If Winters was aware of anything about Mesoamerica, he may know that white and black are both colors associated with cardinal directions. West was black, white was north, east is red, south is yellow, and blue/green is Center.

The Chichen Itza mural indicates that the indigenous peoples had sided with the blacks when the whites first attempted to invade Mexico. However, it later appears that they felt the ‘black giants’ were arrogant and boastful and they wanted to overthrow them – even though they originally had helped defeat the Vikings.

Or you read a book about Maya spirituality and because it ties into the Popol Vuh, a K’iche’ document of questionable age, you think it somehow ties in with the past. While it is all well and fine to conduct ethnographic work on people to help illuminate our understanding of the past, there is no bridge between these modern K’iche’ practices and pre-Columbian Maya beliefs. There are no murals or painted scenes which show these giants battling one another. And the mural at Chichen is inadequate because it depicts multiple black and white figures who are not fighting as well as villagers.

Although many of the Indigenous peoples sided with the blacks in their battle against the white invaders in Pre-Columbian times, by the time the Spanish arrived in Mexico the black rulers, namely the Aztecs, were mistreating the other groups of Indigenous peoples.

The Spanish described the Aztecs as follows: “The people of this land are well made, rather tall than short. They are swarthy as leopards, of good manners and gestures, for the greater part very skillful, robust, and tireless, and at the same time the most moderate men known. They are very warlike and face death with the greatest resolution.”

Whoa, what? When did you establish that blacks were rulers of Mexico? Just on the basis of some Maya murals at Chichen? Chichen is not Mexico. Two different locations in Mesoamerica with two different cultures and two different heritages. On top of that leap that could cross the Grand Canyon, you provide a description which in no way describe the Aztecs as black.

Archaeological evidence, Mayan and Spanish descriptions, and pictorial evidence from the codices indicate the Aztecs may have been black people. This would not be surprising because the Paleo-Americans Luzia and Naia were also black.

I don’t know how to deconstruct such a bold faced lie without writing a whole book about it. What I can say is that within Aztec art they made a distinction of what black people looked like. Within the Codex there is a scene in which Cortes is meeting two Tlaxcalan lords while being accompanied by a black servant. Even in the colonial period when this was made, Aztec artists made it a point to highlight how different this servant’s skin was from their own.

In summary, it would appear that the character named Gavite in the Dance of the Giants represents the Spanish. The blacks defeated by Gavite were the Aztecs, who were identified by the Maya and Spanish as black and were represented in the codices as a horrible people who mistreated the other local tribes.

The whites who landed at Chichen Itza were Vikings. The Vikings were well-known navigators that sailed to many nations in Europe, including Great Britain. They may have been sailing in the Atlantic and were mislaid by a storm until they reached Mexico.

In summary? IN SUMMARY?! You didn’t even prove that the white looking figures on the mural were Vikings. You chose an arbitrary date of the occupation of Chichen that coincided with Viking exploration of Greenland and Newfoundland and used that as your proof that somehow Vikings traveled all the way south to Yucatan. This is fucking horseshit and anyone with half a brain would recognize it as such. But I guess I should have expected this from a person who makes it their life publish pseudo-history. I'm kind of surprised there was zero mention from our favorite Afrocentrist Ivan Van Sertima. Didn't think of using the worn and disproven "Olmec were black" card to try and bolster up your position? What a shame, it would have just added to the ridiculousness of this article.