|
Post by dukeofpain on Dec 21, 2005 21:48:30 GMT -5
I have a positive view of spanish colonization myself. The view changes depending on the country, but I think the opinion changes more depending on the colonial history of the country, than on the ethnic make up of the country. By the way, in many latin american countries (those in central america and the caribbean) , and also the Philippine islands, the influence of the USA in their culture and history has been as great, or even greater than the influence of Spain. (Philippine Islands, Puerto Rico) Many latin americans see in fact "cuban communism" more as nationalism than real communism, like an extreme measure necessary to avoid falling in the american sphere of influence. My opinion is that I believe the Spanish were scapegoated by other Europeans as being these mythically fantastic tyrants, when really they had nothing really to show the belief was justified. However, I think the Spanish were fantastic tyrants, just in America, not Europe. So it's partially a myth but also true. The Spanish never even considered the natives as human, they had people, like the philosopher Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda hypothesize and declared their inhumanity, which was sanctioned officialy by decree. When you dehumanize people, the outcome for those dehumanized is never good.
|
|
|
Post by tonynatuzzi on Dec 21, 2005 22:08:48 GMT -5
Spain has to be the most liberal Southern European country because they are the only Med country where gay marriage is legal.
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Dec 21, 2005 22:15:13 GMT -5
the spaniards considered indians as humans, they only thought they were superior, (spaniards considered themselves superior to the Dutch too by the way) when they first arrived to america, they found islands with no natural resources, like cuba, they didnt arrive and found gold first, and in the second trip after returning to Spain, they already had priests to convert the natives and save "their souls".
The king never sanctioned their inhumanity, what do you mean?
And everywhere the locals were dehumanized by the colonial powers, in india, indonesia, anywhere, the locals were second class citizens who were ruled by foreigners.
the treatment of the indians also changed according to the place, in Bolivia indians were exploited in the silver mines, many died, the whole world got most of its silver from bolivians mines for many centuries by the way. In other places, like central america, caribbean, the main cities were located in strategic places to ship the silver from the peruvian ships to spain, the production in the caribbean was mainly sugar and those things, indians were considered too weak for that kind of job, and blacks were bought to work, so, of course you had spaniards in the top of the ladder, but indians were not particularly exploited, they just kept being farmers as before, and they were even higher on the ladder than blacks.
And an extreme would be the jesuitic missions of Paraguay, which was probably the best place for an indian to live ever. Also, most spaniards who came to America were were men, alone, they didnt come to america with their families, so very often they ended up marrying indian girls, creating a large mestizo in between race which had no political rights but was not exploited, very often a spaniard would come to america, marry a mestiza and the son would be considered white, and elite, that was the way of going up the ladder.
Indians were never hunted to extinction like wild beats in latin america, like indians in the USA or australian aborigines.
I think most people compare the spanish and british empire, and dont realize that the spanish empire died with Trafalgar and was an empire of wood galleons, while the british victorian empire was an empire of the industrial revolution, few years of distance, but in fact 2 different ages.
The spanairds did well, and were organized quite well considering the technology they had.
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Dec 21, 2005 22:37:29 GMT -5
Educate Me are you yourself very anti-American. Sounds more like the USA is very anti-south america.
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Dec 21, 2005 23:04:01 GMT -5
Educate_Me, I never realized until a few months ago when I read the "Wastebooks" by the 18th Century German philosopher Georg Lichtenberg that the British stole the phrase originally attributed to the Spanish: Namely, "The sun never sets on the Spanish Empire".
You always hear it attributed to the British Empire. But in the 1700s--according to Lichtenberg--it was said in reference to Spain. (England only later stole it--like how they turned the Austrian national anthem into "Oh, Britannia, Britannia Rules the Seas". They're such unimaginative thieves!
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Dec 21, 2005 23:12:27 GMT -5
droop, you dont know how much it anoys me when people refer to the british empire as the empire were the sun never sets. The empire were the sun never sets is the empire of Phillip II, right after becoming king of Portugal, Spain, south italy, spanish netherlands, and the portuguese and spanish colonies. wiki has a good map that cant be uploaded en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Spanish_Empire.pngby the way, most of the colonies in the east (the portugeuse colonies) were lost to the dutch during the spanish rule of portugal, so, the empire were the sun never sets didnt last that long. Anyway, it was a blessing in disguise for portugal, the portuguese didnt really have the manpower to compete with the english and dutch in the east, and being under spanish rule allowed them to expand further in brazil (before spanish rule, the portuguese were allowed to colonize a very small part of brazil under the treaty of tordesillas, when portugal was anexed by spain, the restrictions were lifted since now they were the same country) and brazil eventually became their greatest colony and is now the greatest latin american country.
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Dec 21, 2005 23:32:46 GMT -5
droop, you dont know how much it anoys me when people refer to the british empire as the empire were the sun never sets. Now for Britian it never rises, well, never breaks through the clouds anyways, lol.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Dec 21, 2005 23:36:52 GMT -5
The average person doesn't live in the past. They're focused on their present needs. most latin americans who were alive in the 70´s and 80´s are still alive. Most of what you mentioned took place before most people were born. And regarding the dictatorships in Latin America the only ones who reference it are the hardcore leftist Che Guevara types and common people who have some stake in nationalizing the government. The poor campesino and worker in the city just cares about their present lot in life and the future, whether that be with one side or another doesn't matter as long as their present situation improves. I don't think he cares whether he works because of an American company or becuas of the government. As long as he works he's a happpy camper. Example comes from this week's issue of "The Economist." There was a rare Pro- American march in Bolivia because workers in labor intensive industries like clothing and jewlery, which is worth 150 million a year in exports, provides 100 thousand jobs. Also, you forget that Allende's adminstration in Chile before his fall was suffering from oncurring demonstrations against him. The economy was being ruined by the man and people took to the streets. Some leftists like to paint this as American influenced but seem to fail to prove how exactly support to Pinochet (mostly "moral" support) caused these demonstrations.
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Dec 21, 2005 23:37:27 GMT -5
I should re write that, it doesnt really bother me, because it was true, the english controled like 25% of the planet , what bothers me is when they dont know they took that line from the spanish empire, or tell me I am lying, which has happened to me, lol.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Dec 21, 2005 23:38:08 GMT -5
Duke, what film is your avatar from?
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Dec 22, 2005 0:16:39 GMT -5
the spaniards considered indians as humans, they only thought they were superior, (spaniards considered themselves superior to the Dutch too by the way) when they first arrived to america, they found islands with no natural resources, like cuba, they didnt arrive and found gold first, and in the second trip after returning to Spain, they already had priests to convert the natives and save "their souls". The king never sanctioned their inhumanity, what do you mean? And everywhere the locals were dehumanized by the colonial powers, in india, indonesia, anywhere, the locals were second class citizens who were ruled by foreigners. the treatment of the indians also changed according to the place, in Bolivia indians were exploited in the silver mines, many died, the whole world got most of its silver from bolivians mines for many centuries by the way. In other places, like central america, caribbean, the main cities were located in strategic places to ship the silver from the peruvian ships to spain, the production in the caribbean was mainly sugar and those things, indians were considered too weak for that kind of job, and blacks were bought to work, so, of course you had spaniards in the top of the ladder, but indians were not particularly exploited, they just kept being farmers as before, and they were even higher on the ladder than blacks. And an extreme would be the jesuitic missions of Paraguay, which was probably the best place for an indian to live ever. Also, most spaniards who came to America were were men, alone, they didnt come to america with their families, so very often they ended up marrying indian girls, creating a large mestizo in between race which had no political rights but was not exploited, very often a spaniard would come to america, marry a mestiza and the son would be considered white, and elite, that was the way of going up the ladder. Indians were never hunted to extinction like wild beats in latin america, like indians in the USA or australian aborigines. I think most people compare the spanish and british empire, and dont realize that the spanish empire died with Trafalgar and was an empire of wood galleons, while the british victorian empire was an empire of the industrial revolution, few years of distance, but in fact 2 different ages. The spanairds did well, and were organized quite well considering the technology they had. Yes, it was unfair of me in characterizing the Spanish in general, because like you said, the treatment is different in different regions for different reasons. Just as it's unfair to characterize all of them as being one and the same. Eskimos contrasted with natives from the Amazon basin contrasted with the true civilizations in south America, prove just how different they are. It's like grouping together Pygmies and Arabs. Like you said it was specific to areas and time, like the silver mines in Bolivia, or the killings of the amazonian natives to profit from rubber. The same applies to North America too. In many instances the natives had good relationships with Europeans and were given opportunities to prosper from them and the wide assortment of things they brought, through hides and beaver pelts and also as guides. In other times the relationships were not good, but it wasn't a native vs. European type deal, as most of the time the were allied with a European people against other Europeans and also against other Indian tribes. When it came down to it, all parties were cynical and aggressive in their cynicism, some were just better at it. Like the English over the natives and for that matter over the French. Genocide is an absurd term though, natives had guns, they had horses, they massacred and mutilated European women and children. The difference is they ultimately lost, well kind of, they still have far more rights than me or any other Europeans in my country.
|
|
|
Post by halcyon on Dec 22, 2005 0:34:20 GMT -5
the spaniards considered indians as humans, they only thought they were superior, (spaniards considered themselves superior to the Dutch too by the way) when they first arrived to america, they found islands with no natural resources, like cuba, they didnt arrive and found gold first, and in the second trip after returning to Spain, they already had priests to convert the natives and save "their souls". The king never sanctioned their inhumanity, what do you mean? And everywhere the locals were dehumanized by the colonial powers, in india, indonesia, anywhere, the locals were second class citizens who were ruled by foreigners. the treatment of the indians also changed according to the place, in Bolivia indians were exploited in the silver mines, many died, the whole world got most of its silver from bolivians mines for many centuries by the way. In other places, like central america, caribbean, the main cities were located in strategic places to ship the silver from the peruvian ships to spain, the production in the caribbean was mainly sugar and those things, indians were considered too weak for that kind of job, and blacks were bought to work, so, of course you had spaniards in the top of the ladder, but indians were not particularly exploited, they just kept being farmers as before, and they were even higher on the ladder than blacks. And an extreme would be the jesuitic missions of Paraguay, which was probably the best place for an indian to live ever. Also, most spaniards who came to America were were men, alone, they didnt come to america with their families, so very often they ended up marrying indian girls, creating a large mestizo in between race which had no political rights but was not exploited, very often a spaniard would come to america, marry a mestiza and the son would be considered white, and elite, that was the way of going up the ladder. Indians were never hunted to extinction like wild beats in latin america, like indians in the USA or australian aborigines. I think most people compare the spanish and british empire, and dont realize that the spanish empire died with Trafalgar and was an empire of wood galleons, while the british victorian empire was an empire of the industrial revolution, few years of distance, but in fact 2 different ages. The spanairds did well, and were organized quite well considering the technology they had. Yes, it was unfair of me in characterizing the Spanish in general, because like as you said, the treatment is different in different regions for different reasons. Just as it's unfair to characterize all of them as being one and the same. Eskimos contrasted with with natives from the Amazon basin contrasted with the true civilizations in south America, prove just how different they are. It's like grouping together Pygmies and Arabs. Like you said it was specific to areas and time, like the silver mines in Bolivia, or the killings of the amazonian natives to profit from rubber. The same applies to North America too. In many instances the natives had good relationships with Europeans and were given opportunities to prosper from them and the wide assortment of things they brought, through hides and beaver pelts and also as guides. In other times the relationships were not good, but it wasn't a native vs. European type deal, as most of the time the were allied with a European people against other Europeans and also against other Indian tribes. When it came down to it, all parties were cynical and aggressive in their cynicism, some were just better at it. Like the English over the natives and for that matter over the French. Genocide is an absurd term though, natives had guns, they had horses, they massacred and mutilated European women and children. The difference is they ultimately lost, well kind of, they still have far more rights than me or any other Europeans in my country. Yep it wasn't all one way traffic. Native Americans played a major role, and to a lesser extent africans, in the shaping of what is know as "Latin America" today. Matthew Restall offers a more balanced account of events. He even won an award for it. Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquestwww.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/HistoryWorld/LatinAmerican/?ci=0195160770&view=usaUsing a wide array of sources, historian Matthew Restall highlights seven key myths, uncovering the source of the inaccuracies and exploding the fallacies and misconceptions behind each myth. This vividly written and authoritative book shows, for instance, that native Americans did not take the conquistadors for gods and that small numbers of vastly outnumbered Spaniards did not bring down great empires with stunning rapidity. We discover that Columbus was correctly seen in his lifetime--and for decades after--as a briefly fortunate but unexceptional participant in efforts involving many southern Europeans. It was only much later that Columbus was portrayed as a great man who fought against the ignorance of his age to discover the new world. Restall also shows that the Spanish Conquest relied heavily on black and native allies, who provided many thousands of fighters, vastly outnumbering the conquistadors. In fact, the native perception of the Conquest differed sharply from the Spanish version--they saw it as a native civil war in which the Spaniards played an important but secondary role.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Dec 22, 2005 0:53:26 GMT -5
Henry Kamen has also written about myths of the Spanish Empire. Touching on the role played by Amerindians that fought alongside Cortes against the Aztecs as well as the roles played by other Europeans in the Spanish empire. The Spanish Empire was very multi ethnic with Italians, Wallons, Germans, Jews, etc. playing important roles.
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Dec 22, 2005 0:53:40 GMT -5
the spaniards considered indians as humans, they only thought they were superior, (spaniards considered themselves superior to the Dutch too by the way) when they first arrived to america, they found islands with no natural resources, like cuba, they didnt arrive and found gold first, and in the second trip after returning to Spain, they already had priests to convert the natives and save "their souls". The king never sanctioned their inhumanity, what do you mean? And everywhere the locals were dehumanized by the colonial powers, in india, indonesia, anywhere, the locals were second class citizens who were ruled by foreigners. Well, at first the conquest was brutal, and at the same time completely legal by Spanish law. There was an inquest called the "Valladolid Controversy". Where the king was seeking opinions on whether the Indians should be treated as humans, which would mean an end to conquest, and rather a peaceful Christianization. Which never really happened. One philosopher of the commission named Sepúlveda, testified his belief that they were not "human", well not "human" enough anyways, to warrant an ending to the conquest, and the killing and exploitation that came in it's wake. In the end, neither of the advocates of the debate won, and it went unresolved. So there was never an end to the conquest and hence deaths and exploitation. However I would say it was mediated in large part, mainly because there was many members of the clergy that advocated for the Indians. Yes I know pretty much every european nation thought they were superior to every other european nation, incuding spainiards to the dutch. However I'd say comparing spanish opinion on the dutch to that of the native of america, isn't exactly on par with each other. Like you said before, the peak of the British and Spanish empires were in a different era, and so of course the type of racism and dehumanizing of the subjects of the empires would be consequentially different. In the case of Spain the clergy were of outstanding importance in policy, and that in itself makes the two empires and their foreign policy markedly different. The British had a very unique method of conquest and much of it was apart from brute aggression. That doesn't mean they wouldn't be as despised, because they surely were, just as any occupier would be.
|
|
|
Post by dingding on Dec 22, 2005 17:19:14 GMT -5
You can not compare Kingdom of Spain conquest to brutal protestant colonism.NO WAY IN HELL! The Kingdom of Spain (like the Portuguese) was based on christian morality I suggest everyone to pick up and read www.amazon.com/gp/product/0375502041/103-3541726-1423045?v=glance&n=283155you will find the only Empire to hold deep discustions on its purpose of conquest are the Iberian ones.
|
|