|
Post by lurker4now on Jun 17, 2005 9:52:13 GMT -5
es.geocities.com/losconquistadoresespanoles/derechos.htmCUESTIONES EN TORNO A LOS DERECHOS HUMANOS EN LA CONQUISTA Y COLONIZACIÓN DE AMÉRICA POR LOS ESPAÑOLES © Justo A. Navarro (2003) Conviene decir, para terminar este breve estudio que, más que por las truculentas “crueldades” y “tropelías” que menciona Las Casas, y que se cometieron ciertamente, los indígenas fueron más eficazmente diezmados por las enfermedades desconocidas en el Nuevo Mundo que acompañaban a los europeos: gripe, viruela, sífilis, etc., e incluso simples resfriados, mortales para los nativos. También debe decirse que los españoles en toda la época de la Colonia, jamás –y esto debe afirmarse rotundamente- iniciaron guerras, entendidas como tales, contra los indígenas por despojo de tierras, al estilo de las que se vieron durante la colonización anglosajona en lo que hoy día son los Estados Unidos. En la América colonizada por los españoles jamás se vieron “reservas indias”; y aunque no sea este el lugar apropiado, debe decirse que jamás se vieron en la América hispana sucesos tan vergonzosos como los que protagonizaran los ingleses en la segunda mitad del siglo XVIII, quienes, no pudiendo vencer a los bravos iroqueses, durante unas treguas les ofertaron como regalo mantas contaminadas para que les diezmara la viruela, como así sucedió. Al comenzar el siglo XIX esa valerosa nación había dejado de existir.
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jun 17, 2005 10:14:51 GMT -5
Spain literally had the world's largest empire. It was far larger than Rome's. Larger than that of the Golden Horde. [It was even geographically larger than the British Empire--who won on largeness population-wise, however, due to India and its teeming populace.] As for Spain's empire, at its height, it spread over almost every continent. From the Phillipines in Asia, to its massive North American holdings, to almost all of South America, to its territory in Iberia, the Netherlands, holdings throughout the Mediterranean, North Africa, etc. It's hilarious to listen to you guys say that Spain wasn't one of history's largest oppressors. I guess all those Aztecs WILLINGLY gave up their land. Or those Phillipinos. I guess everyone just LOVED turning over their sovereignty and freedom to European colonizers. It must've made them feel great when these angels of mercy stripped them of their culture, their language--their very names. It's like in the mini-series "Roots," where Kunta Kinte is told that his new name will be Toby. He's whipped repeatedly until he accepts "Toby," his slave-name. So all those Aztecs who were told that their names weren't Ixtlan or Makka, but were now magically Juan or Jose. Forced to speak Castilian. Killed off by over-work or disease. Yeah, there was no oppression there. None at all. All those peoples around the world just WILLINGLY gave up their territory--out of love for the white angels of mercy from Europe. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha
P.S.--To Eufrenio, I have nothing but contempt for the British Empire, too. You can gauge my hostility to the British by a post I participated in regarding Hemingway. When I found out he was English, I screamed "NOOOOOOOOO!" So I'm not exonerating the English. They're even worse than the Spaniards. But at least there are no Englishmen pretending to have been oppressed. Thousands and thousands of Brits were born in colonial India, as the sons and daughters of military and administrative personnel. The "Hispanic" thing in America would be as offensive as England having scholarships and tax-breaks to help "Indians" and white Saxons taking the scholarships, mumbling, "But *I* was born in India. I'm therefore an 'Indian'. It's all the same thing!" It's not. And the Brits don't do that. But I see white Spaniard after white Spaniard take advantage of a phony connection to the people they oppressed--getting tax right-offs and scholarships due to imaginary oppression that they not only DIDN'T suffer--but which their ancestors afflicted. And don't insult my intelligence by saying that Princeton graduate and millionaire Jose Ferrer from Puerto Rico was somehow "oppressed" or had anything in common with a negro from the Dominican Republic or an Aztec from Mexico. The only thing he had in common with them was that his great-grandparents OWNED them.
|
|
|
Post by hs on Jun 17, 2005 10:29:17 GMT -5
Empires come and go. The Spaniards have been colonized by phoenicians, they were a province of the romans, then they fell to the northern barbarians and after (and for a long time) they were under muslim rule. The Visigoth Law did not allow, for over 2 centuries, Goths getting married to locals. The muslims took as many wives as they wanted to. A brief glimpse at history shows how dynamic the world is...
|
|
|
Post by hs on Jun 17, 2005 10:33:14 GMT -5
Spain literally had the world's largest empire. It was far larger than Rome's. Larger than that of the Golden Horde. [It was even geographically larger than the British Empire--who won on largeness population-wise, however, due to India and its teeming populace.] As for Spain's empire, at its height, it spread over almost every continent. From the Phillipines in Asia, to its massive North American holdings, to almost all of South America, to its territory in Iberia, the Netherlands, holdings throughout the Mediterranean, North Africa, etc. It's hilarious to listen to you guys say that Spain wasn't one of history's largest oppressors. I guess all those Aztecs WILLINGLY gave up their land. Or those Phillipinos. I guess everyone just LOVED turning over their sovereignty and freedom to European colonizers. It must've made them feel great when these angels of mercy stripped them of their culture, their language--their very names. It's like in the mini-series "Roots," where Kunta Kinte is told that his new name will be Toby. He's whipped repeatedly until he accepts "Toby," his slave-name. So all those Aztecs who were told that their names weren't Ixtlan or Makka, but were now magically Juan or Jose. Forced to speak Castilian. Killed off by over-work or disease. Yeah, there was no oppression there. None at all. All those peoples around the world just WILLINGLY gave up their territory--out of love for the white angels of mercy from Europe. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha It doesnt take much violence (or violence at all), in some cases, to colonize others. Spanish most typical names are, IN FACT, hebrew names: José, Juan, Maria, etc, are hebrew names, and the hebrews didnt need any violence to do it. Sometimes violence takes place, i agree. And thats why many Spaniards, who were under Goth rule, have Germanic names, even if they actually (in most cases) dont look like one (just as a native american Mexican dont look like a José). Examples: Abelardo, Rodrigo, etc.
|
|
|
Post by lurker4now on Jun 17, 2005 10:40:25 GMT -5
Spain literally had the world's largest empire. It was far larger than Rome's. Larger than that of the Golden Horde. [It was even geographically larger than the British Empire--who won on largeness population-wise, however, due to India and its teeming populace.] As for Spain's empire, at its height, it spread over almost every continent. From the Phillipines in Asia, to its massive North American holdings, to almost all of South America, to its territory in Iberia, the Netherlands, holdings throughout the Mediterranean, North Africa, etc. It's hilarious to listen to you guys say that Spain wasn't one of history's largest oppressors. I guess all those Aztecs WILLINGLY gave up their land. Or those Phillipinos. I guess everyone just LOVED turning over their sovereignty and freedom to European colonizers. It must've made them feel great when these angels of mercy stripped them of their culture, their language--their very names. It's like in the mini-series "Roots," where Kunta Kinte is told that his new name will be Toby. He's whipped repeatedly until he accepts "Toby," his slave-name. So all those Aztecs who were told that their names weren't Ixtlan or Makka, but were now magically Juan or Jose. Forced to speak Castilian. Killed off by over-work or disease. Yeah, there was no oppression there. None at all. All those peoples around the world just WILLINGLY gave up their territory--out of love for the white angels of mercy from Europe. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha It doesnt take much violence (or violence at all), in some cases, to colonize others. Spanish most typical names are, IN FACT, hebrew names: José, Juan, Maria, etc, are hebrew names, and the hebrews didnt need any violence to do it. Sometimes violence takes place, i agree. And thats why many Spaniards, who were under Goth rule, have Germanic names, even if they actually (in most cases) dont look like one (just as a native american Mexican dont look like a José). Examples: Abelardo, Rodrigo, etc. hebrew names is because of faith its not a coloniztion. gremanic name is -1% lol
|
|
|
Post by hs on Jun 17, 2005 10:43:22 GMT -5
Spain literally had the world's largest empire. It was far larger than Rome's. Larger than that of the Golden Horde. [It was even geographically larger than the British Empire--who won on largeness population-wise, however, due to India and its teeming populace.] As for Spain's empire, at its height, it spread over almost every continent. From the Phillipines in Asia, to its massive North American holdings, to almost all of South America, to its territory in Iberia, the Netherlands, holdings throughout the Mediterranean, North Africa, etc. It's hilarious to listen to you guys say that Spain wasn't one of history's largest oppressors. I guess all those Aztecs WILLINGLY gave up their land. Or those Phillipinos. I guess everyone just LOVED turning over their sovereignty and freedom to European colonizers. It must've made them feel great when these angels of mercy stripped them of their culture, their language--their very names. It's like in the mini-series "Roots," where Kunta Kinte is told that his new name will be Toby. He's whipped repeatedly until he accepts "Toby," his slave-name. So all those Aztecs who were told that their names weren't Ixtlan or Makka, but were now magically Juan or Jose. Forced to speak Castilian. Killed off by over-work or disease. Yeah, there was no oppression there. None at all. All those peoples around the world just WILLINGLY gave up their territory--out of love for the white angels of mercy from Europe. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha It doesnt take much violence (or violence at all), in some cases, to colonize others. Spanish most typical names are, IN FACT, hebrew names: José, Juan, Maria, etc, are hebrew names, and the hebrews didnt need any violence to do it. Sometimes violence takes place, i agree. And thats why many Spaniards, who were under Goth rule, have Germanic names, even if they actually (in most cases) dont look like one (just as a native american Mexican dont look like a José). Examples: Abelardo, Rodrigo, etc. hebrew names is religion its not a coloniztion. gremanic name is -1% lol Youre wrong if you think Germanic names constitute only 1% of iberian names. A great deal of iberian names are Germanic in origin. Olavo means Olaf. Rodrigo, Rudiger. Ruy is an abreviation of Rodrigo. The s or z ending of the names, implying son of, is also Germanic. Like Rodríguez, Lopez, etc.
|
|
|
Post by lurker4now on Jun 17, 2005 10:52:27 GMT -5
Empires come and go. The Spaniards have been colonized by phoenicians, they were a province of the romans, then they fell to the northern barbarians and after (and for a long time) they were under muslim rule. The Visigoth Law did not allow, for over 2 centuries, Goths getting married to locals. The muslims took as many wives as they wanted to. A brief glimpse at history shows how dynamic the world is... From the Visigothic Code (forum judicum) of the gothic king Flavius Recesvintus (652-672 AD) II. It shall be as Lawful for a Roman Woman to Marry a Goth, as for a Gothic Woman to Marry a Roman. The zealous care of the prince is recognized, when, for the sake of future utility, the benefit of the people is provided for; and it should be a source of no little congratulation, if the ancient law, which sought improperly to prevent the marriage of persons equal in dignity and lineage, should be abrogated. For this reason, we hereby sanction a better law; and, declaring the ancient one to be void, we decree that if any Goth wishes to marry a Roman woman, or any Roman a Gothic woman, permission being first requested, they shall be permitted to marry. And any freeman shall have the right to marry any free woman; permission of the Council and of her family having been previously obtained. www.geocities.com/refuting_kemp/visigoth.htmlAnthropological study in a Visigothic graveyard in Portugal
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jun 17, 2005 10:56:05 GMT -5
HS, The problem I have with the descendants of Spain's empire is that--at least, in the United States--the children of the oppressors are trying to have themselves identified with the oppressed. As I wrote in previous posts, Americans are being encouraged to lump white people like Eric and Lyle Menendez into some imaginary "Hispanic" super-group, implying that they have some kinship with REAL oppressed Indians and blacks. They don't. Does anyone REALLY believe that Cameron Diaz or Emilio Estevez have suffered "racial discrimination"? If so, I'm sure they cried all the way back to their mansions. Yeah, real oppressed! That's all I'm saying: The descendants of other empires didn't try to pull this crap. Phoenicians didn't go back to their former colonies and pretend that they were oppressed, too. Nor did Rome go and pretend that they were li'l ol' slaves and suffered right along with their colonies. But all these white people from Latin America--coming to the US and pretending that they're somehow part of some imaginary super-group of oppressed minorities. That's what galls me. If I see one more blue-eyed Cuban or blonde Argentine being lumped in with legitimately-oppressed Indians or negroes, I'll go nuts! P.S.--And it's all "white guilt," as some other poster observed. White Americans LOVE claiming that they have Indian blood because they secretly feel that it justifies them in being in the New World . . . that they didn't rape and steal and kill. But that they "inherited" the land. Bwa-ha-ha-ha! Likewise, with all these white South Americans allowing themselves to be portrayed as victims--when they're really the ancestors of the victimizers. Like that ass Jorge Ramos from "Telemundo". That blue-eyed hypocrite pretending that he's in the same boat as the millions of Aztec-Mexicans pouring over America's borders. Uh-huh! I'm sure that Americans would really be as outraged if all the illegals looked like Mr. Ramos. I'm sure that Americans are terrified of an America over-run by Cameron Diazes and Emilio Estevez's and Andy Garcia's. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha Yeah, right!
|
|
|
Post by lurker4now on Jun 17, 2005 10:57:54 GMT -5
hebrew names is religion its not a coloniztion. gremanic name is -1% lol Youre wrong if you think Germanic names constitute only 1% of iberian names. A significant share of iberian names is Germanic in origin. Olavo means Olaf. Rodrigo, Rudiger. Ruy is an abreviation of Rodrigo. The s or z ending of the names, implying son of, is also Germanic. Like Rodríguez, Lopez, etc. ok you are right but germans have nothing to do with Spain.
|
|
|
Post by hs on Jun 17, 2005 11:38:35 GMT -5
Empires come and go. The Spaniards have been colonized by phoenicians, they were a province of the romans, then they fell to the northern barbarians and after (and for a long time) they were under muslim rule. The Visigoth Law did not allow, for over 2 centuries, Goths getting married to locals. The muslims took as many wives as they wanted to. A brief glimpse at history shows how dynamic the world is... From the Visigothic Code (forum judicum) of the gothic king Flavius Recesvintus (652-672 AD) II. It shall be as Lawful for a Roman Woman to Marry a Goth, as for a Gothic Woman to Marry a Roman. The zealous care of the prince is recognized, when, for the sake of future utility, the benefit of the people is provided for; and it should be a source of no little congratulation, if the ancient law, which sought improperly to prevent the marriage of persons equal in dignity and lineage, should be abrogated. For this reason, we hereby sanction a better law; and, declaring the ancient one to be void, we decree that if any Goth wishes to marry a Roman woman, or any Roman a Gothic woman, permission being first requested, they shall be permitted to marry. And any freeman shall have the right to marry any free woman; permission of the Council and of her family having been previously obtained. www.geocities.com/refuting_kemp/visigoth.htmlAnthropological study in a Visigothic graveyard in Portugal Only with Receswinth marriages between Goths and Iberians became allowed.
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Jun 17, 2005 12:05:16 GMT -5
Comparing the spanish empire to nazi germany is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jun 17, 2005 12:46:49 GMT -5
Educate Me, You're right: Comparing the Spanish Empire to Nazi Germany *is* ridiculous. The Nazis lasted for 12 years. Spain's empire lasted for over three centuries. The Nazis never colonized the planet, Spain did. The Nazis didn't spread the German language to every corner of the globe and force Indians and Orientals to adopt names like Hans and Fritz. Spain, to the contrary, did. I know what you'll retort: But the Nazis oppressed Jews. To that, I must retort: In 1492--the same year that Columbus set sail for the Americas--Spain ejected all of its Muslims and Jews. And the Inquisitions were set up to root out those who stayed behind. The Nazis gassed their Jews. The Spanish Inquisition wasn't so kind. They used every form of Medieval torture device on their Jews--they flayed them alive, impaled them in iron maidens, slowly stretched them on racks till every bone and muscle snapped. The Nazis, contrariwise, sent them into showers and, within minutes, they were whisked away into oblivion. But . . . er . . .uh . . . yeah: Bad Nazis. Bad Nazis. Only the Nazis are bad. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha
P.S.--The ultimate evil of the Nazis? --The aforementioned Jews? [Believe me, I'd rather have been gassed than burned alive at a stake.] But let's ignore the greater inhumanity that Spain displayed in the "rooting out" of their Jews than Germany did. . . . I want you to crack a history book and see how many millions of Indians also died due to Spain: Those worked into the ground as slaves, those who were raped, killed, fell due to malnourishment and disease. I want you to read about how Spain started the mass transportation of African slaves to the New World (and how literally millions died, piles of men heaped one on another---their necks in chains like animals.) And then I want you to come back and tell me with a straight face that 12 whole years of Jews being made to wear little yellow stars was as evil as chains around a black man's neck. For all the Nazi photos of Jews, I've never seen one outfitted like an animal with chains. Prove me wrong, though. Show me some pictures. And I have pity for Europe's Jews. Those little yellow stars were humiliating. Oh, so much worse than being stripped naked and made to wear an animal-collar. But Jews had to suffer for a whole 12 years! Wow! Twelve whole years. The evils perpetrated against Indians, Asians and blacks lasted 300 spread over four different continents--with fifty different races all enslaved, beat down and used like toilet paper. But I suspect you'll come back, wholly unconcerned for faceless "brown" people. Only Jews deserve pity. All those icky brown people made into slaves--- Er . . uh . . . who cares? That MUST be your attitude if you think 12 years confined to Europe was worse than 300 spread out over the globe. But maybe I'm wrong. After all, I'm sure you didn't mean that "only Nazis could be evil".
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Jun 17, 2005 13:23:14 GMT -5
You cant compare nazi Germany to the Spanish Empire because there was no Genocide in the Spanish Empire.
The Spaniards came to America with no wifes or family, and they took amerindian women for themselves, there was no intention of aniquilating the local population. Just converting them to catholicism.
Most of the population of the continent is mestiza, the father of my niece is paraguayan and he speaks Guaraní, if you go to Bolivia or Peru you will find that most of the people are pure amerindian and many are aymara-spanish quechua-spanish bilingual, even in Mexico some people still speak Nahuatl.
Had the English been as nice to the Amerindians as the Spaniards nowadays the USA would be a predominantly mestizo country, instead, they came with their families, killed and pushed the native populations to the west, whom finally ended up in reservations, ... now, that could be compared to genocide without sounding ridiculous..
You have a very USA attitude towards Spanish America, are you one of those guys who protest against Columbus Day?
|
|
|
Post by gambler32 on Jun 17, 2005 14:12:09 GMT -5
Drooperdoo, you certainly love stereotypes: "[How much sillier is it to see an illegal alien who is 4'11'', with Aztec-coloring, a fu-manchu mustache, a squat, neckless Amerindian body . . . and to be expected to refer to him as Spanish?] " To tell you the truth, I lived in Los Angeles for 34 years, probably before you were born, and only a minority of Mexicans fit that stereotype, most do not. Everyday I see hundreds who do not look at all like the hypothetical person you are describing. I live in Southern California, and rarely see Mexicans that fit his stereotype. And lets remember their is over 7 milion people of Mexican ancestry in Southern California.
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jun 17, 2005 14:15:46 GMT -5
Educate Me, It's been estimated that up to 90% of the aboriginal population of South- and Central-America was wiped out by disease. But how--you ask--did the Indians come in close enough proximity to the Spanish to get their diseases? --You see, it's rather hard to maintain distance from a slave-master when he has a chain around your neck. The Spanish used the Indians as slave labor and did so until they died. Germany likewise used Jews as slave labor, and used them till they died. One evil lasted for 12 years. One for 300. You say "the Spanish took wives" among the Indians. If by "took wives," you mean "raped and murdered," then I'll agree. And you're completely ignoring the blacks--millions of whom died on their translatlantic journey. And even when they made it alive, they were made to wear chains like animals, beaten and worked to death. And, lastly, you completely ignore the difference between gassing a Jew to death and the Spanish Inquisition's habit of burning them alive. Yes, it sounds like you think "only Nazis can be bad". I feel sorry for the millions of blacks, Indians and burnt Jews that you apparently don't care a whit about.
I guess it's true what Josef Stalin said, "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths a statistic." --Likewise, "The death of a group in Europe is a tragedy, the genocide of millions and millions of brown and black people a statistic."
|
|