Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > General History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

General History General History Forum - General history questions and discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old February 21st, 2017, 03:51 AM   #111
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 18,030

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edric Streona View Post
You premise in short lies on the fact that the Spanish were better because despite wholesale slaughter, slavery and racism they let the survivors sit next to them in church.
Yup, while the British created the walls of segregation because they were superior race and were not at all different from the Nazi's only that they did it long before the Germans. Well, when the Germans were into racism, that was the moment Britain abolished it.
dagul is offline  
Remove Ads
Old February 21st, 2017, 03:53 AM   #112
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 18,030

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edric Streona View Post
The body count suggests not much difference. I'd say being empires there was no difference.
Are you saying that Britain and Germany or Japan and the US were the same during WW2 because of body counts?
dagul is offline  
Old February 21st, 2017, 03:55 AM   #113

mark87's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: Santiago de Chile
Posts: 1,941
Blog Entries: 1

The Spanish where racist imperialists, who hated and persecuted protestants, Jews, moors (ethnic cleansing and attempt at genocide, not to mention war of aggression for territorial gain in the Netherlands) and worked natives to death in silver mines and gold fields (slavery in all but name) the black legend didn't spring out of nowhere. The fact that there are more natives in Latin america is not a pass on all the terrible legacy of the Spanish american empire...there just happened to be more of the to start with in the general vicinity. (I have definitely simplified this and made a caricature of it all but oh well...).
mark87 is offline  
Old February 21st, 2017, 03:55 AM   #114

Edric Streona's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: Japan
Posts: 3,180

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
Yup, while the British created the walls of segregation because they were superior race and were not at all different from the Nazi's only that they did it long before the Germans. Well, when the Germans were into racism, that was the moment Britain abolished it.
And the Spanish created a superior race (had for a long time) but let some of their pets sit next to them. Sorry. No difference.
Edric Streona is offline  
Old February 21st, 2017, 03:58 AM   #115

Kevinmeath's Avatar
Acting Corporal
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Navan, Ireland
Posts: 12,971

Quote:
Originally Posted by martin76 View Post
.............................What´s your thesis?.
That you are a Sectarian Nationalist with little understanding of history?


Quote:
Originally Posted by martin76 View Post
The segregacionism in countries inhabited by anglos.. it is a fact (Rhodesia-SAF-Alabama) etc etc... .
Well the British opposed the segregation in both Rhodesia and RSA? both were introduced after their break from Britain so rather than being intellectually lazy and dismissing everyone as 'anglos' perhaps read some history.

Quote:
Originally Posted by martin76 View Post
Almost not slaves in Alabama before anglos arrived there (after 1821 in some areas, as Mobile, for example) or Texas....
Almost no people but nevertheless slavery existed in the Spanish Empire even after being abolished by the 'ultra racist' anglos.

Quote:
Originally Posted by martin76 View Post
By other side, the institution of Slavery was different in Spain than in Britain...
True the British banned it the Spanish didn't.


Quote:
Originally Posted by martin76 View Post
Slaves had right to be owners and families were indissoluble.. very different in the protestant case.. where slaves lacked of ownership and families could be split..
But they were still slaves (Dagul insists they could not be slaves since the Pope 'banned' slavery in the 16th century) and yes different because in the case of the 'ultra racist' protestant British they banned the trade.


Quote:
Originally Posted by martin76 View Post
But what is your thesis... .
As I said above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by martin76 View Post
why do you think it is possible to find more indians in Guatemala than in New York.. or why there are more indians in Arizona-Texas-Nuevo México (300 years under Spanish Dominion) than in New Hampshire or Massachussetts (100-150 years under British ruled)...
Because the migration patterns were very different perhaps?

Quote:
Originally Posted by martin76 View Post
I would like you explain why more indians in Arizona (Spaniards arrived there in 1539 (Vasco de Coronado and Marcos de Niza).. today some historian says the first spaniards arrived to Arizona in 1528. And they were in Arizona till 1821...and Mexico from 1821 to 1848... Well, can you explain why more indians in Arizona than in New Hampshire? British arrived in 1629 and they left in 1783...154 years under B dominion...Arizona 293 years under S dominion....
Again rather different migration patterns and also you are aware that it just wasn't 'ultra racist' anglo's you migrated to America but even a great many 'pure' non-racist Catholics?


Quote:
Originally Posted by martin76 View Post
So.. what´s your theory? .
As I said you are a Sectarian nationalist with a poor grasp of history and a complete and utter failure to understand context.

Quote:
Originally Posted by martin76 View Post
For me it is clear: Spain was Catholic and Britain was Protestant... And your theory? I don´t understand your theory explains why more indians in the Spanish sphere than in the British one....
So how does your theory explain that the native Americans sided with the 'ultra-racist' Protestant British in the ARW (and 1812) and that one of the reasons for the ARW was that the British Crown had given guarantees to native people?

Quote:
Originally Posted by martin76 View Post
My theory is clear.. Spaniards were Catholics: the natives were fully human in the eyes of God. For the Crown of Spain, the Indians were Spaniards, they have souls and they have subjects of the crown....
Is that why they enslaved them? or treated them as second class citizens?

Quote:
Originally Posted by martin76 View Post
The British were Protestant... they believed in CALVINISM...the theory of fair prosperous (Calvinus).
The official form of 'Protestantism' in Britain is 'Anglicanism' , there are numerous different 'churches' in 'Protestantism' often very different from each other to ignorantly dismiss them all as 'Racist' in one sweeping opinion is bigoted to say the least.

For instance Anglicanism is often derided as being 'catholic light'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by martin76 View Post
the popular strain of Calvinism that dominated many culturally-English colonies felt entitled to dismissing the savage as having been predestined to having been born a savage, thereby indicating their eternal damnation.That was the main reason... Calvinus and the Protestantism...made British extermianted Indians in their dominions whilst the crown of Spain protected and cared for them. (Leyes de Indias).
The Spanish Crown passed laws to protect Indian rights but these were largely ignored and the Indians abused and exploited.

Quote:
Originally Posted by martin76 View Post
From a mexican web.. The Spanish missionary evangelized and baptizing the indians...............

Calvinus was the guilty of the Anglo-saxon racism.

And is the catholic Church guilty of Spanish racism? because Spanish South America had a society completely based on race.
Kevinmeath is online now  
Old February 21st, 2017, 04:00 AM   #116
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 18,030

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edric Streona View Post
And the Spanish created a superior race (had for a long time) but let some of their pets sit next to them. Sorry. No difference.
There was huge difference because the Spaniards never segregated themselves and did not create walls against the colonial subjects the way Britain and the Dutch did it which was the same style of the Germans during WW2. The superiority of the Spaniards against their colonial subjects were comparable to the way the Ottoman Empire did it, but the British, the Dutch, the Japanese and the Nazi Germans should be in the same boat only in terms of racism. Of course, Britain changed a lot. But the slave trade and opium war were thousand times worse when compared to Spanish plunder of gold in South America.
dagul is offline  
Old February 21st, 2017, 04:04 AM   #117

mark87's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: Santiago de Chile
Posts: 1,941
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
There was huge difference because the Spaniards never segregated themselves and did not create walls against the colonial subjects the way Britain and the Dutch did it which was the same style of the Germans during WW2. The superiority of the Spaniards against their colonial subjects were comparable to the way the Ottoman Empire did it, but the British, the Dutch, the Japanese and the Nazi Germans should be in the same boat only in terms of racism. Of course, Britain changed a lot. But the slave trade and opium war were thousand times worse when compared to Spanish plunder of gold in South America.
Funny there are a few forts around here and the south of the country to keep out natives and their attacks that would like to disagree with you're statement, not to mention they had to set up forts all over the country (since this was the southern frontier of the empire) to keep their ''subjects'' from ''living amicably'' with them...
mark87 is offline  
Old February 21st, 2017, 04:07 AM   #118
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 18,030

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark87 View Post
Funny there are a few forts around here and the south of the country to keep out natives and their attacks that would like to disagree with you're statement, not to mention they had to set up forts all over the country (since this was the southern frontier of the empire) to keep their ''subjects'' from ''living amicably'' with them...
Forts were the place to keep their arsenal and army which is true these days among nations. Was there any separate Catholic Church or parks for the natives and Spaniards in Chile during the colonial period?
dagul is offline  
Old February 21st, 2017, 04:56 AM   #119
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2014
From: Spain
Posts: 5,358

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
Forts were the place to keep their arsenal and army which is true these days among nations. Was there any separate Catholic Church or parks for the natives and Spaniards in Chile during the colonial period?

Dagul

You are right in everything you wrote. It is as easy as to count the number of indians in Maine and the number of indians in Nuevo México...the number of indians in Paraguay and the number of indians in Virginia...mathematics are vey easy...

Mr Kevin doesn´t like to compare the Protestantism and the racism...the Calvinus doctrine.. but it is the fact...pure fact. The protestantism was important for the Industrial Revolution and for the racism...
And Dagul is right...British attacked Dutchmen in Africa (18th-19th centuries) and no natives supported.. not in Batavia not in Capetown...British attacked Spaniards in Phillipines and America.. and natives supported the Crown... because the Spanish integrated in their communities...The British only banned the slavery in 19th Century...not before.. the Spaniards banned the slavery (for indians) in 15th Century (Catholic Monarchs, Isabella and Ferdinand) and in 16th Century...not slavery between indians nor in West nor in East Indies.

Mark is a joker,

Spanish NEVER was Imperialist.. because Imperialism born in second half 19th century with Industrial Revolution... Spain was Imperial...in the classic concept...

Quote:
who hated and persecuted protestants
Protestants persecuted Catholics in Switzerland, Holland, Ireland... England...

Quote:
ar of aggression for territorial gain in the Netherlands)
Netherlands belonged to the King of Spain as Duke of Burgundy... he never conquered nothin and never did an agression war... it was a Protestant uprising and the King sent the soldiers to suffocate.. by the way, dear MARK.... AMSTERDAM.. yes.. AMSTERDAM supported the KING.. yes, the SPANISH KING against the Rebellion... Funny "War of agression"...or maybe Amsterdamm wanted the War of Aggression...

Quote:
worked natives to death in silver mines and gold fields
Only in the early times.. Natives were free man according to the Laws of Indies....and they were free...

Mapuches supported Spain against the Spanish (Criollos) had rebelled against the King...

And Dagul is right...Natives in East and West indies supported the Crown for centuries...

Mapuches never supported Spain ... everybody can read this article wrote in MAPUCHE-NACIÓN.ORG. IN THE YEAR 2011 by a Mapuche chief..Pro-español y sobre todo, pro-monárquico (Pro-Spanish and, above all, Royalist). ;Mapuches were loyal to the king in 1817 (and in 1830).. and it would be very very very funny a referendum today.. if they prefe to be "chili" or to be under the Crown!...

"Our fatality as a people has nothing to do with the Crown and yes much with the republics" (Pedro Cayuqueo, Mapuche chief, October, 13th, 2011).

And not a Mapuche chief but a Peruan Nobel Prize winner:

The conquest of America was brutal and violent...but who had exploited, robbed and in many cases exterminated the Indians... weren´nor Crown nor Spaniards in Peninsula....but the Spaniards born in America, the Criollos, our parents and grandparents, after they became Independent!!!! (Mario Vargas Llosa).. The Criollos after they were independent...not when the indians were under the right protection of the Crown...
martin76 is offline  
Old February 21st, 2017, 05:12 AM   #120

Kevinmeath's Avatar
Acting Corporal
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Navan, Ireland
Posts: 12,971

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
I agree with you on this aspect. The Anglo Saxon and the Dutch had their segregation being the way of life. You don't find the British and the Dutch going in the same church with their colonial subjects the way it was done by the Spaniards in their colonies. You don't find the British and the Dutch dining, partying and dancing with the natives because there was wall created by them as compared to the manner the Spaniards would do it with their colonial subjects.
But as has been pointed out to you Spanish Colonial society was totally segregated on the grounds of race.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
When Britain attacked the colonies of the Dutch the latter were not accorded with support the way the Spaniards were lent with helping hand by their native subjects that must explain the human relationship of the parties as colonial master and colonial subjects.
Sorry you are aware that the British army was tiny and that the British relied upon 'local forces' for much of their military in colonies and indeed upon locals to administer the territories?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
Also, the way the slaves were treated in the Protestant territories was way different as you mentioned it Martin. It was evident that the Spaniards abused the Indians, which was factual, but those natives were given the opportunity to maintain their family. They were lesser human being in the eyes of the Spaniards but definitely they were not seen as cows or chattel the way the British and the Dutch looked at their colonial subjects.
But the British abolished slavery the Spanish didn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
Seldom you will find any love from former colonies of Britain and Netherlands but I don't see that with Spain.

Debateable -- if they loved Spain and its ever so benign rule why did they all rebel?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
The Indians today hate the British Empire,
Again a debateable assertion but even if true it in no way show the Spanish to be none-racist or less so than the 'Ultra-racist' British and Protestants in general.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
but you don't find that form of disgust from South Americans, Mexico or the Philippines.
Just your opinion

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
Of course, such is not true in the US, Canada or Australia because they were the same white racists who created walls against the natives which is the subject matter of this thread
Again just your own assertion but these countries not only abandoned slavery-- in the USA case even fought the most bloody war in its history over the issue -- this would seem to suggest that these countries were not the uniformly racist countries you suggest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
Those White people in African may not be British decent but they were definitely from Western Europe and were either English or Dutch speaking people. That situation was the same in the US when the Africans needed to sit at the back of the bus and it happened not during the existence of the British Empire but they were former territories of the British Empire. .

As has been pointed out to you Rhodesia and Apartheid came after breaking from the British Empire and was opposed by colonial authorities

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
When the Spaniards arrived in the Philippines, they abolished slavery, .

Well they didn't in the rest of their Empire

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
and for sure there was that caste as you mentioned, but, it was not like the upper class must have different park or church the way it was done in British or Dutch territories. The people in Spanish dominion would still be in the same public places thought they had that social stratification. Simply untrue in British territories. .
Spanish Colonial society was completely divided along racial lines!

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
In India there was caste, and the British instead of abolishing it, rather exploited it and in modern India, a lot of them hate Britain. ...................
You claimed all Indians earlier now its just 'a lot'!

But evidence of British 'ultra-racism' is that they did not impose their religion and culture upon 'India' but allowed local culture to continue while its evidence of Spanish 'enlightenment' is they destroyed local culture and imposed their religion?
Kevinmeath is online now  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > General History

Tags
australia, canada, natives, zealand



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why didn't New Zealand and Fiji join Australia? WeisSaul Asian History 42 February 27th, 2017 06:30 AM
Historic sites in Australia and New Zealand weezer17 Asian History 0 April 29th, 2015 05:34 PM
Canada vs Australia Toltec Speculative History 33 November 13th, 2009 08:15 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.