|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jun 17, 2005 17:38:41 GMT -5
My point is that a comparison between the Nazis and the Spanish empire is fully valid--except that the Germans were more humane murderers. They gassed their victims. The Spanish sawed off limbs, raped, beheaded: It was far less efficient, and far more brutal. Although -- to be fair -- the Germans were in a time of greater technology, which allowed them distance from their victims. That's what makes the Spaniards so brutal. They had to look their victims in the eye--and yet still manifested the strength to saw off childrens' limbs, to butcher and decaptitate with their own bloody hands. No mainstream historians have any comparable acts by the Nazis--who (as I said) were more methodical and efficient. Even thestraightdrope.com admitted that the "Jews-made-into-soap" and "lampshades-of-human-flesh" were urban legends that most historians dismiss. (As it turns out, these urban legends first surfaced in the FIRST World War, and were created at the British Ministry of Propaganda. But no matter,) The hardcore evidence is all about gassing. Nothing else. No orgy of blood--as eyewitnesses have of the Spaniards. In any case, I'll end the discussion with you here . . . smiling warmly to myself that there are people as innocent and sweet as yourself--who believe in kindly empires, sweet conquistadors and un-raped aborigines.
|
|
|
Post by trustme on Jun 17, 2005 18:02:41 GMT -5
My point is that a comparison between the Nazis and the Spanish empire is fully valid--except that the Germans were more humane murderers. They gassed their victims. The Spanish sawed off limbs, raped, beheaded: It was far less efficient, and far more brutal. Although -- to be fair -- the Germans were in a time of greater technology, which allowed them distance from their victims. That's what makes the Spaniards so brutal. They had to look their victims in the eye--and yet still manifested the strength to saw off childrens' limbs, to butcher and decaptitate with their own bloody hands. No mainstream historians have any comparable acts by the Nazis--who (as I said) were more methodical and efficient. Even thestraightdrope.com admitted that the "Jews-made-into-soap" and "lampshades-of-human-flesh" were urban legends that most historians dismiss. (As it turns out, these urban legends first surfaced in the FIRST World War, and were created at the British Ministry of Propaganda. But no matter,) The hardcore evidence is all about gassing. Nothing else. No orgy of blood--as eyewitnesses have of the Spaniards. In any case, I'll end the discussion with you here . . . smiling warmly to myself that there are people as innocent and sweet as yourself--who believe in kindly empires, sweet conquistadors and un-raped aborigines. Ive seen videos of the massive graves for the Germans Jew during WW2 and most of the bodies in those graves well extremely thin and frail I think most of them show the obvious signs of starvation and the Americans did bomb German supplie routes it be interesting to see how many Jews actually died in the gas chambers alot of the bodies ive seen appear to probably died from starvation.
|
|
|
Post by trustme on Jun 17, 2005 18:04:43 GMT -5
My point is that a comparison between the Nazis and the Spanish empire is fully valid--except that the Germans were more humane murderers. They gassed their victims. The Spanish sawed off limbs, raped, beheaded: It was far less efficient, and far more brutal. Although -- to be fair -- the Germans were in a time of greater technology, which allowed them distance from their victims. That's what makes the Spaniards so brutal. They had to look their victims in the eye--and yet still manifested the strength to saw off childrens' limbs, to butcher and decaptitate with their own bloody hands. No mainstream historians have any comparable acts by the Nazis--who (as I said) were more methodical and efficient. Even thestraightdrope.com admitted that the "Jews-made-into-soap" and "lampshades-of-human-flesh" were urban legends that most historians dismiss. (As it turns out, these urban legends first surfaced in the FIRST World War, and were created at the British Ministry of Propaganda. But no matter,) The hardcore evidence is all about gassing. Nothing else. No orgy of blood--as eyewitnesses have of the Spaniards. In any case, I'll end the discussion with you here . . . smiling warmly to myself that there are people as innocent and sweet as yourself--who believe in kindly empires, sweet conquistadors and un-raped aborigines. Ive seen videos/pictures of the massive graves for the German Jews during WW2 and most of the bodies in those graves were extremely thin and frail I think most of them show the obvious signs of starvation and the Americans did bomb German supplie routes it be interesting to see how many Jews actually died in the gas chambers alot of the bodies ive seen appear to have probably died from starvation. Also Mexicans now adays are proud of their Spanish heritage and the fact that Europeans exist in their country and colonized their country and live their just watch any Mexican TV show its just a bunch of Spaniards. Of course the Spanish conquistacors killed alot of people directly and indrectly but if your information is from an Anglo Saxon source it will be definetly be geared on making on the Spaniards to look as horrific as possible its called the black legend which is an Anglo Saxon supremacist manifestation. PS If the Spanish conquering America and mixing with the Natives/killing is genocide then what is happening in Europe now is also genocide.
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jun 18, 2005 12:33:19 GMT -5
Trustme, You asked if the quotes I used were from an "Anglo source," and--if you'll re-read--you'll see that my only source is a Spanish priest from 1504 . . . an eyewitness, named Bartolomeo Las Casas. So, no, no "Anglo-Saxons" enter into it. I know there's a great tendency among South Americans--especially mestizo South Americans--to pretend that all these conquistadors came and "married" Indians, etc. The truth is that they raped them, killed them, mutilated them. Evenetually--years later--they DID normalize relations and intermarry, etc. But in those early years of conquest it was all about enslaving the local populace, committing genocide and plundering as much gold as possible. It wasn't the love and flowers of the historical revisionism that some of the people on this thread insist--despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.
P.S.--Regarding your suspicions about the orthodoxy of the Holocaust--- I, too, have read news stories about inconsistencies in the accounts. Recently, Auscwicz removed a plque which read "4.4 million people died here" and replaced it with one that NOW reads "1 million people died here." I don't know what that does to the whole "6 million" account--but, after doing research the officials at Auschwicz admitted that initial figures were erroneously high. It does seem now--as we move away from the urban legends and propaganda of war--that most Jews were used as slave labor and died as a result of over-work, starvation and disease . . . as all those skeletons in the graves attest. But I just used the "gas chamber" accounts because I didn't want anyone to attack me as a "Holocaust Denier," even though a recent Jewish journalist has obtained tape of the head of the Auschwicz Memorial admitting that the "gas chambers" on the site were actually built by the Soviets for propaganda purposes against the Germans. But since I'm neither a German nor a Jew, I'll hold myself aloof from this emotional fight--and suspend judgment.
|
|
josex
Full Member
Posts: 141
|
Post by josex on Jun 18, 2005 12:52:48 GMT -5
Trustme, You asked if the quotes I used were from an "Anglo source," and--if you'll re-read--you'll see that my only source is a Spanish priest from 1504 . . . an eyewitness, named Bartolomeo Las Casas. So, no, no "Anglo-Saxons" enter into it. I know there's a great tendency among South Americans--especially mestizo South Americans--to pretend that all these conquistadors came and "married" Indians, etc. The truth is that they raped them, killed them, mutilated them. Evenetually--years later--they DID normalize relations and intermarry, etc. But in those early years of conquest it was all about enslaving the local populace, committing genocide and plundering as much gold as possible. It wasn't the love and flowers of the historical revisionism that some of the people on this thread insist--despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. P.S.--Regarding your suspicions about the orthodoxy of the Holocaust--- I, too, have read news stories about inconsistencies in the accounts. Recently, Auscwicz removed a plque which read "4.4 million people died here" and replaced it with one that NOW reads "1 million people died here." I don't know what that does to the whole "6 million" account--but, after doing research the officials at Auschwicz admitted that initial figures were erroneously high. It does seem now--as we move away from the urban legends and propaganda of war--that most Jews were used as slave labor and died as a result of over-work, starvation and disease . . . as all those skeletons in the graves attest. But I just used the "gas chamber" accounts because I didn't want anyone to attack me as a "Holocaust Denier," even though a recent Jewish journalist has obtained tape of the head of the Auschwicz Memorial admitting that the "gas chambers" on the site were actually built by the Soviets for propaganda purposes against the Germans. But since I'm neither a German nor a Jew, I'll hold myself aloof from this emotional fight--and suspend judgment. not true, as far as I know in Puerto Rico, they converted these girls, and ask the priest permission, I don't know in other places, but that is not all true
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jun 18, 2005 14:38:31 GMT -5
Josex, Bartolomeo Las Casas was a priest in Mexico--Spain's largest colony. It was called New Spain. Aztecs and Incas had gold. Carib Indians in Puerto Rico didn't. So the majority of the killing and enslaving happened in the major centers of Spanish administration--Mexico, Peru, etc. [Puerto Rico--while important due to the fact that Columbus visited it--is kind of irrelevant to the history of Spanish colonialism since--as I said--it had no gold and was of minor tactical or military importance.]
P.S.--But even in Puerto Rico the Indians weren't "equal citizens" as you suggest. All these people were enslaved and worked till they dropped. So you can pretend that the Spaniards didn't rape, plunder and kill. But that's not really consistent with history. [Read up on Bartolomeo Las Casas and his heroic work in saving the Indians from the living hell they endured under slavery.]
|
|
|
Post by Ponto Hardbottle on Jun 19, 2005 12:07:08 GMT -5
Look guys living in the past or fantasies of the past is like you walking backwards and trying to bite your asses. Forget what was written by one person and not backed up by others. Most Puerto Ricans today have other cares and wants. I still don't know what a Latino is. I thought it was a caucasoid person born in the Spanish speaking parts of the Americas who lived in the USA. Like the late Fernando Lamas.
|
|
|
Post by humantag on Jun 19, 2005 17:40:42 GMT -5
A real Iberian wouldn't vilify his own people using biased accounts. Bartholomew de Las Casas accounts are exaggerated and by and large bullshit and has fueled the black legend myth about the cruel Spaniards and the poor little Indians for centuries. The fact that so many Puerto Ricans and other Latin Americans have Amerindian ancestry is enough to debunk the rubbish you've posted. The main reason why there are more mestizos in certain Latin America countries (eg. Mexico) than the U.S. has more to do with the fact the United States has absorbed so many more European immigrants over the past 200 years - not because the Anglos killed more Indians. The truth is, as some have pointed out, the idea that the Indians of the New World were largley the victims of a planned genocide - whether by Anglo or Spanish hands - is largely a myth. On both sides of the Rio Grande, the indigenous population was done in more by the unintentional introduction of European diseases they had no immunity for than anything else. In any case, the spectacle of Anglos and Latinos arguing over who killed more red men, women and children is absurd - both were extraordinarily cruel. I still can't stop laughing over the comments of one particularly dim bulb here who suggested that the Spaniards should be commended for allegedly questioning the morality of their colonialism as they colonized. This is like saying that a murderer who questioned the morality of murder whilst murdering should be considered, in some sense, less morally reprehensible. If anything, the implicit heightened awareness of the immorality involved only heightens their culpability. As for the dolt who suggested that the presence of mestizos in Mexico is evidence of the relative tolerance of the Conqistadors, one might just as cynically suggest that the reason there are more 'Indians' in Mexcio than the U.S. is that the English were more willing to mix with the indigenous population than the Spaniards. ;D Let's face it - if the U.S. government and media were as lily white as Mexico and so many other Latin American nations, there'd be race riots every other Tuesday. How many black media celebs are there in the Americas, outside the U.S.? How many non-whites hold significant positions of power in government in the Americas, outside the U.S.? You can count them on one hand. 'People of color' fair FAR BETTER in the U.S. than in any Latin American nation. That's why they always come HERE and never run THERE.
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jun 19, 2005 18:33:37 GMT -5
Every society has its "noble lie". Rome's was that it was an honor to die for one's country. The United States' was that "all men are created equal". Mexico's is "Every Mexican is a marriage of Spaniard and Aztec--50%, 50%." It's called "The Mestizo Myth" and it was created so that the very white could exploit the very brown--and minimize the possibility of a racial uprising of the oppressed. Mexico's social system was never like the United States'; it was more like South Africa--with a small population of whites on top and a massive majority of non-whites on the bottom. It's amusing to read the comments in here: Remarks that imply that the US and Mexico were the same, Indian-wise. This ignores one massive point: The tribes in what later became the United States were primitive, pre-literate hunter-gatherers. The Indians in Mexico [the Aztecs] evolved cities--and city = massive concentrated populations. [Modern estimates give the Aztecs a population of over 3 million--larger than many European countries at the time. And when one adds in all the millions of non-Aztec tribes that were ruled over by the Aztecs, one realizes what a massive population it was--when confronted by a handful of Spaniards.] So the United States never ever had the teeming millions of Indians that Mexico had. Ever. They never had cities. Never had massive concentrated populations. Furthermore, the US had an aggressive immigration policy aimed at expanding its European population. So, at the end of the day, in the US you had 1,000 whites for every Indian; and in Mexico you had 1,000 Indians for every white. Because of that the Spaniards in Mexico had to tread a finer line--like the aforementioned white South Africans. THAT--and only THAT--is the reason that there are still so many Indians in Mexico: Not the love of the conquistador, but the fact that there were 1,000-times as many Indians and there was no logistical way that the Spaniards could overcome them. So it wasn't love, sweetheart. It was pragmatic concern for safety. Indians were slaves, period. Anyone who thinks that they were equal citizens with Spaniards is a victim of the "noble lie," a stooge who refuses to notice that all the wealthy and powerful are white and all the brown and Indian are living in corrugated-tin shanties. You've been brainwashed by the masters to identify with THEM--and to imagine that all those conquistadors brought flowers to the Indians . . . that no rape occurred, no murder. The Indians were slaves--and still are to an alarming extent today. Any foreigner who has visited South America or Mexico can see it clearly: White on top, Aztec on the bottom. And if you deny that, then haven't actually been to those countries. They're FAR more racist and racially-stratified than the United States. In the Unites States, a non-white like Oprah Winfrey can become a billionaire. Just like Bill Cosby. Can anyone name a single wealthy Aztec? Not one. So you need to peddle your b.s. somewhere else, to someone who buys it. You live in an incredibly racist society. And, if you had any guts, you would have risen up and slaughtered the white ones and taken back your land. Instead you sit in your rusty tin shanties and parrot nonsense about how you're all "equal," all the same: Meanwhile the ones with the blue eyes ride in the limos and the brown ones pick tomatoes. Same as it ever was, same as it ever was . . .
|
|
|
Post by humantag on Jun 19, 2005 18:55:22 GMT -5
... Meanwhile the ones with the blue eyes ride in the limos and the brown ones pick tomatoes. Same as it ever was, same as it ever was . . . Why the fixation with blue eyes? One need not be be blue eyed to be 'white'. Most white Spaniards have brown eyes, as do most whites in general.
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Jun 19, 2005 21:05:23 GMT -5
It is good to see you said the population of Mexico was 3.000.000, very often I read delirious demographics of America before the conquista, some that say America was more populated than europe, other that the Aztec empire had 25.000.000 inhabitants, I read one once that said 45.000.000.
I dont know why, I guess it is to make the population loss look even more dramatic.
In school they taught me the both the Incas and Aztecas had more or less 6 million inhabitants, and the rest of the continent had 6.000.000 more, which sounds about right.
We have detailed Data of the European population of that time to compare.
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Jun 19, 2005 21:05:35 GMT -5
"Raca cosmica" hehe
|
|
|
Post by Toasty on Jun 19, 2005 21:33:32 GMT -5
Raza Cosmica, I remember that one.
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jun 20, 2005 13:40:00 GMT -5
Malbec, Man! --You sound like such a racist. The poster said that life for "non-whites" was better in the US than in Latin America and your response was: "you're probably right, you sound like your speaking out of personal experience." Only a bigot would try to "condescend" to another poster by implying he's non-white. The implication is that "white" = good, and non-white = insult. And you were clearly trying to insult him. Wow! --What a racist.
|
|
capo
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by capo on Oct 7, 2005 20:31:57 GMT -5
where are u from again droop?
|
|