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 April 3rd, 2017, 11:46 AM   #641
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 18,030

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark87 View Post
1. What makes you think that slaves in the Spanish empire were not property? Because they got to go to church? By the way all sectors of Spanish society had to conform to Spanish Catholicism's version of Christianity, any aspect of native culture that didn't fall into line was intermediately suppressed.

2. Yes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casta Note the higher taxes they had to pay, the lower legal station in life, among other issues, and that is still omitting those who were not legally free.

3. Except they did give rights to different groups at different times, and remember who ended the transatlantic slave trade, it was not the Spanish navy dagul.

4. Oh and I suppose the Spaniards defeated the different native peoples of the continent with hugs and kisses did they?

5. Honestly?
The slavery in the British Empire created chattels out of the humans. It was clear that they were given no rights by their masters. There was no opportunity for the child of the slave within the ambit of British colony like in Virginia to become free person because there was assurance that he or she must inherit the slave status of the mother. Those facts were never the case for the Spanish slaves. Case in point, African slaves would run away from British territory and flee towards the Spanish dominion:

Quote:
As early as 1689, African slaves fled from the South Carolina Lowcountry to Spanish Florida seeking freedom. These were people who gradually formed what has become known as the Gullah culture of the coastal Southeast.[4] Under an edict from King Charles II of Spain in 1693, the black fugitives received liberty in exchange for defending the Spanish settlers at St. Augustine. The Spanish organized the black volunteers into a militia; their settlement at Fort Mose, founded in 1738, was the first legally sanctioned free black town in North America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Seminoles

It is never argued that merely giving the slaves the opportunity to be in the Catholic Church was a gift, but it was a symbol that they're treated better by the Spanish colonial masters in view of not segregating them. For sure, there was hierarchy of the Spanish society but there were no laws of segregation. The point was there was no separation of them. While there was stratification of status, they were not separated due to race the way it was done in British colony. Them suffering the same was not accurate during those times because those with rights have the ability to redress grievance against none.

Sure, the Spanish navy cannot end it because they were not in the position to rule the Atlantic ocean. They were dominated already by that time by the RN and it was the British who were selling the slaves to the American colonies, be it Spanish, Portuguese and others.

The segregation of the colonial people in British colony can never be the same in the assimilation in Spanish colony. Separate churches and public places which was the norm in British colony was not in Spanish dominion.
dagul is offline  
Remove Ads
Old April 3rd, 2017, 12:15 PM   #642

Kevinmeath's Avatar
Acting Corporal
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Navan, Ireland
Posts: 12,581

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
Those are facts that the Protestant Churches in the US facilitated in recruitment of members of KKK and they provided the platform of its ideological justification of racism..

All the Protestant churches really? or just a handful and if so why did the majority reject it if it was their theology?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
For sure there were Protestants who were against it, .
The majority? and why was this? if its in their 'nature'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
but it proceeded because of the support that they gotten from Protestant congregations that gave them members in order to create that violent group who were persecutors of the ethnic minorities in the territory where they exist and their peripherals. Without provision of such support from Protestant Churches, they cannot have such empowerment. .
By that logic abuse of children was done by the Catholic clergy with the support of their congregations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
Virginia is just an example and so with Australia, Canada, Kenya, West Africa, India where the racial prejudice of Britain was so apparent. .
Sorry the accusation is not that there have been racist British people or that Britain had an empire, and fought to get that Empire -- Spain did also.

But that the British were not simply 'more racist' by a million times -- in all locations-- they are a 'diabolical, satanic and demonic' people and are so because they are Protestants.

You haven't proved that and it just says as much about your own bias as anything else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
You see, there was purity of blood in Spanish Empire but they did not create policies ] like this:.
Sorry it has been shown that Spain did segregate on the grounds of race and had an obsession with pure blood.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
You see, in Spanish colony they liked to assimilate people to behave like Europeans and dress like the Spaniards as shown in the picture of Martin. .
Well sorry I don't find forcible conversion to the Catholic faith to be the be all and end all of things that mitigates anything Spain did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
But the British would like to create settlers to be not European and.
Settlers not European? don't think so but anyway the British Empire was large and had many different colonial experiences.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
like and them embracing their past, the archaic tribal way in order to be poor and never be at par with way the Westerners think and live..
Or you could argue they respected local culture more? which is far from racist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
Is that not demonic policy of 20th century? Selfish and ultra racist..
Only in your mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
Truly, both Spain and Britain committed atrocities and racial prejudice,.

At last you admit it but no doubt only find Britain's a problem because they are Protestants.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
but Spain was never like Britain who was selfish not partake the Western culture to other race. The very first thing that the Spaniards did after the invasion and war was to evangelize the natives and taught them the way of life of a Westerner..
You can equally claim that is a sign of Spanish bigotry and intolerance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
Not the British who wanted to create tribesmen out of them. Selfish and demonic in 20th century. .
Again only in your mind

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
Again, the purity of blood was not designed to create separate churches and public places in Spanish dominions, but in British colonies, segregation was a way of life. .
No it was a racist obsession with 'pure' bloodlines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
Ultra racism of it. .
Only in your rather biases opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
The justification of racial discrimination on the basis of superiority of race was utilized by the Protestant in their discrimination against the Africans. I posted a lot about that. .
You claimed a lot are you back to claiming Catholics can not be racist?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
That public apology of the Anglican church would mean that they were supporting slavery and racism. .
Well if you read the source you posted the church was celebrating its role in the abolition but felt a need to also apologise for participation in it . If asyou claim the Anglican church is racist because of its theology why the change?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
The Pope said about it too. But in 1500's the Vatican had already changed its course against 1800's by the British Empire..
So the Pope apologising is a sign of non-racism but the Anglican church doing so is a sign of racism?

But as your source pointed out the Vatican did not abolish slavery in the 1500's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
Sure, South Africa and Apartheid is not representative of Britain, but an exhibition of its extremist policy .
So you were wrong and if you bothered to learn about South Africa you'd know there was considerable conflict between the Afrikaners and the British.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
Of course, Spain had slaves but they had rights..
While the British freed theirs and a slave with 'rights' is still a slave.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
You don't find any rights of slaves in British colonies. Fact that Britain was more devilish that Spain in terms of treatment of people who belong to other cultures. Ultra racist indeed.

You have no evidence for that its just your assertion.
Kevinmeath is offline  
Old April 3rd, 2017, 02:27 PM   #643
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 18,030

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevinmeath View Post
All the Protestant churches really? or just a handful and if so why did the majority reject it if it was their theology?

The majority? and why was this? if its in their 'nature'

By that logic abuse of children was done by the Catholic clergy with the support of their congregations.

Sorry the accusation is not that there have been racist British people or that Britain had an empire, and fought to get that Empire -- Spain did also.

But that the British were not simply 'more racist' by a million times -- in all locations-- they are a 'diabolical, satanic and demonic' people and are so because they are Protestants.

You haven't proved that and it just says as much about your own bias as anything else.

Sorry it has been shown that Spain did segregate on the grounds of race and had an obsession with pure blood.

Well sorry I don't find forcible conversion to the Catholic faith to be the be all and end all of things that mitigates anything Spain did.

Settlers not European? don't think so but anyway the British Empire was large and had many different colonial experiences.

Or you could argue they respected local culture more? which is far from racist.

Only in your mind.

At last you admit it but no doubt only find Britain's a problem because they are Protestants.

You can equally claim that is a sign of Spanish bigotry and intolerance.

Again only in your mind

No it was a racist obsession with 'pure' bloodlines.

Only in your rather biases opinion.

You claimed a lot are you back to claiming Catholics can not be racist?

Well if you read the source you posted the church was celebrating its role in the abolition but felt a need to also apologise for participation in it . If asyou claim the Anglican church is racist because of its theology why the change?

So the Pope apologising is a sign of non-racism but the Anglican church doing so is a sign of racism?

But as your source pointed out the Vatican did not abolish slavery in the 1500's.

So you were wrong and if you bothered to learn about South Africa you'd know there was considerable conflict between the Afrikaners and the British.

While the British freed theirs and a slave with 'rights' is still a slave.

You have no evidence for that its just your assertion.
You see Kevin, when I stated that Protestant Churches aided the KKK to recruit members and provided the opportunity to create base for recruits, I was referring to those Protestant congregations that did it. None in my post can be seen that I stated "all Protestant Churches." It is only you who keeps on changing tenor of my argument because you cannot dismantle the fact that the diabolic members of KKK all came from Protestant denomination and they killed a lot of people and harassed them to in the name of racism. You cannot change the fact that they happened in Protestant nation of the US and not in the Catholic nation of Mexico or Argentina and also they were former colony of Britain and not Spain. The British Empire was the purveyor of racism in such territory, the way it happened in Kenya in the most modern time. I already posted the difference between the system of rule by Spain in Canary Islands in contrast to way Britain ruled Kenya and they were both in 20th century. Britain was utterly demonic in contrast to Spain and it is written in history the way the former ruled Kenya and the latter governed Canary Islands.

You see Kevin, while it was true and it is true that Priests abused children, that is also true among the Protestants:
Quote:
The report by Kathryn Joyce, Article from Prospect.org is an eye opener to the extend of the sexual abuse epidemic in many Protestant Churches and schools. By this article, we do not want to undermine Catholic abuses by Catholic priests whom we feel should also be burned at the stake, but its time to fess up, and before we pull the plank out of the eye in our Catholic brothers, Protestants should first see the plank in their eye. The following is the full report:
There is More Sexual Abuse in The Protestant Churches Than Catholic | Walid Shoebat

But being rational I don't consider that as part of the support of congregation, the way the Protestant Churches supports KKK. There is no logic about that because the actions of these people who committed that crime was and is not part of the policy of the church. However, the Protestant churches that supported KKK and Apartheid possess that theology of white supremacy. Racists evil people are the exact description of them. Ultra racist Britain and Holland during the colonial time.

I will show you again the difference between Spain and Britain as colonial power:

Britain:

Quote:
Important cultural practices such as the Potlach of the West Coast and the Sun Dance of the Prairies were banned in 1884 along with other Native customs deemed barbarous, or as impediments to the spread of European values. The potlatch in particular, likely due to the ‘giveaways’ involved with it, was seen as particularly threatening to the principles of private property that the government was trying to instil, and was oftentimes viewed as ”communist” .

In 1885 General Middleton introduced the Pass System in western Canada, under which Natives could not leave their reserves without first obtaining a pass from their farming instructors permitting them to do so. While neither the Indian Act nor any other legislation allowed the Department of Indian Affairs to institute such a system, and it was known by government lawyers to be illegal as early as 1892, the Pass System continued to be enforced until the early 1930’s. As Natives were not permitted at that time to become lawyers, they could not fight it in the courts.

And finally, the measures which had initially been designed to protect reserve lands were abused in many areas to allow for farming, settlement or other non-Aboriginal uses of the land such as mining or forestry. When Aboriginals began to press for recognition of their rights and to complain of corruption and abuses of power within the Indian department, the Act was amended to make it an offence for an Aboriginal person to retain a lawyer for the purpose of advancing a claim.
Canada’s First Nations: The Legacy of Institutional Racism

Spain:

Quote:
The conquest of Colombia by Spain in 1536 and its eventual unification with Venezuela in 1549 produced the Audiencia of New Granada. This quickly became the domain of Dominican missionary activity. However unlike their efforts in Mexico and Peru, the Dominicans began to develop small missions and schools rather than monastaries.

By 1569, there were 40 small missions (or doctrinas); some 18 priories were also established. One of the leading Dominican figures in New Granada was Saint Louis Beltran (1526–81), who converted thousands of Natives to Christianity.

The running of schools and universities was among the special talents of the Dominicans. At Lima and in Mexico City universities were founded in the 16th century. In Guatemala the Real y Pontificia Universidad de San Carlos was recognized in 1676.

Universities were also founded in Bogotá (1627), Quito (1688), and Santiago, Chile (first as a college in 1619 and then as a university in 1684). Faculties included studies in logic, history, physics, philosophy, mathematics, theology, and canon law.

Early on, the Jesuits had begun to compete with the Dominicans in Latin America for students and had founded rival universities and colleges in Bogotá, Quito, Bolivia, and Santiago. During the 18th century, the Dominicans succeeded in establishing a university at Havana (1728), which was raised to the title of Royal and Pontifical University in 1734.

The end of the 17th century saw a rise in the number of Dominican foundations for women. There were 22 houses in Mexico City, 10 in Puebla, and a male monastery outside Oaxaca that was turned into a convent for Dominican nuns. The education of Spanish, Creole, and Indian women was undertaken in a number of these convents.

There were also separate convents for the education of the daughters of native chiefs (caciques). Indian women were rarely denied admittance to the Dominican order. The creation of female houses followed throughout the 18th century with convents established at Corpus Christi in Mexico (1724), Cosamalupan (1737), and Oaxaca (1782).
Epic World History: Dominicans in the Americas

The Spaniards saw humans among the people and taught them the Western style of living. The way of their civilization. The British saw brutes among them like lions and elephants because these humans should not leave the reserves without them knowing it and should not mingle with the superior white people of Britain. You see how demonic British Empire was? Facts Kevin, facts.

The Spaniards who implemented "pure blood" allowed the natives to go to courts of law in 1600's while the ultra racist diabolic British Empire prohibited humans to go to court because of racism.
dagul is offline  
Old April 3rd, 2017, 02:51 PM   #644
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 18,030

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark87 View Post
Again I'm going to repeat it until it sticks in you're brains, the Spanish had slavery, where black Africans and their descendants were put to work in the same conditions black Africans were put to work by Anglo-protestants, for hundreds of years. It was pure unbridled racism. There is no dignity there. The Spanish were the greatest importers and slavers of black Africans during the transatlantic slave trade, the greatest. The Spanish had explicit laws that categorized everyone, free and not free in Spanish colonial society according to their race, with whites born in Spain at the top, whites born in america in the next level, and then everyone else, I fail to see how that is not institutionalized racism. How can one explain said laws then?
I'm sorry but at this point the idea that protestant racism and Protestantism's relation with racism as being inherently deeper than catholic racism and institutionalized racism is completely biased and furthermore necessitates the glaring omission of facts and the cherry-picking of others. You, Dagul and Martin are espousing thoughts and opinions but not facts, it's you're theory and opinion that Protestantism is conductive to racism more so than Catholicism, and any historical fact that counters this opinion is whisked away with apologetic excuses and the very core notion that 'its OK for catholic's to be racist and have slavery, because they gave their subjects the gift of Catholicism'.
You talk to me about the KKK and riding at the back of the bus, but conveniently leave out the very institutional and legal racism based on the very legality of owning specifically black Africans in Cuba and in Brazil long after any ''protestant'' colony or former colony in the new world had legal racial slavery. Yes there was the Klan and there was apartheid and those did not exist in the 1950's in catholic countries, the same as slavery only existed in catholic realms of Spain and Portugal in the 1880's in the new world.
No apologetic approaches are made in my arguments that Spain was not as racist as Britain that is the tenor of my post which are the core of my asseveration. You read that post of the difference between Britain and Spain in treating their colonial subjects. Putting humans in reserves and not allowing them to out without permission besides not giving them day in court which Spain never did are million times evil colonial policies by Britain.
dagul is offline  
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 07:30 AM
Historic sites in Australia and New Zealand weezer17 Asian History 0 April 29th, 2015 06:34 PM
Canada vs Australia Toltec Speculative History 33 November 13th, 2009 09:15 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.