Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Latin culture has been and will always be a very inclusive culture and society. The Iberians that is Portugal as well as Spain did NOT consider the native or people of other races as being so different as to classify them subhuman,
However the Protestant people including the English, the Dutch and basically all northern non Catholic countries DID. The Spanish a most other Iberian people intermarried the natives without much grief. After all, they had been colonized by the Northern Africans for over 700 years. The Catholics believed that the natives people had a soul that is worth saving. Unlike Protestants who hated anyone who was not Protestant and even worse if the people were racially different.
To the extent that up until the 1970's any Catholic could not hold governmental office in Sweden, Norway, Holland,etc. If a protestant wanted to become Catholic he or she would be facing prison time. Martin Luther the founder and father of the Protestants was racist and xenophobic, he wanted to make all Jews disappear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the...and_Their_Lies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathol...rdic_countries
The Protestant colonizers had all of these beliefs hard wired in their heads even before they left Europe.
Location: Formerly NYC by week; ATL by weekend...now Rio bi annually and ATL bi annually
1,522 posts, read 2,242,785 times
Reputation: 1041
Quote:
Originally Posted by naners1
The Latin culture has been and will always be a very inclusive culture and society. The Iberians that is Portugal as well as Spain did NOT consider the native or people of other races as being so different as to classify them subhuman,
However the Protestant people including the English, the Dutch and basically all northern non Catholic countries DID. The Spanish a most other Iberian people intermarried the natives without much grief. After all, they had been colonized by the Northern Africans for over 700 years. The Catholics believed that the natives people had a soul that is worth saving. Unlike Protestants who hated anyone who was not Protestant and even worse if the people were racially different.
To the extent that up until the 1970's any Catholic could not hold governmental office in Sweden, Norway, Holland,etc. If a protestant wanted to become Catholic he or she would be facing prison time. Martin Luther the founder and father of the Protestants was racist and xenophobic, he wanted to make all Jews disappear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the...and_Their_Lies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathol...rdic_countries
The Protestant colonizers had all of these beliefs hard wired in their heads even before they left Europe.
To be clear, for example, the Portuguese when they landed in South America did not bring any women. The laws of nature were ever prevailing as these colonizers would have no problem smashing the native captives as well as the African slaves brought to the shores. The narrative of casual marriage is disingenuous at the least if not obtuse. Could there have been a very small %'g of colonizers whom found love and married? Possibly. But to make it seem like the Catholic Latins were not barbaric and perpetuated the sin of colonization and slavery but lived in peace and intermarried to save souls is crazy.
This is the official result of the pre 2010 census (2000 census): Depicts the "old" way of thinking that Brasileiros had. It should be noted that not all Brazilians would choose one of the 25 or so options when queried. I pulled the Engish version for you all. https://ww2.ibge.gov.br/english/esta...ela1.shtm#a112
The dichotomy can be attributed to what some may deem as becoming "woke", or what my friends here in Rio simply refer to is embracing their roots openly and freely. Either way, the 10 year shift in psychology is truly something to be marveled. I say this because simply there is no, or rather at the time of the 2010 census, was no tangible socioeconomic advantage to openly embracing "preto" over cafuso, pardo, etc.
And to bring it back to the original narrative of this thread as it pertained to the sytemic erasure of African Descendants in Latin America, this change in psychology and embracement of ones heritage actually attempts to combat it.
To be clear, for example, the Portuguese when they landed in South America did not bring any women. The laws of nature were ever prevailing as these colonizers would have no problem smashing the native captives as well as the African slaves brought to the shores. The narrative of casual marriage is disingenuous at the least if not obtuse. Could there have been a very small %'g of colonizers whom found love and married? Possibly. But to make it seem like the Catholic Latins were not barbaric and perpetuated the sin of colonization and slavery but lived in peace and intermarried to save souls is crazy.
You area being disingenuous and obtuse by you lack of knowledge. What do you mean that the Portuguese did not bring any women when they landed in SA? The Portuguese and the Spanish continued to bring women and men throughout the hundreds of years they lived in the area.
It is like saying the English only brought criminals who were let out prison to be sent to Australia. So where do you think all those Australian women you see today came from?
The Spanish when they expanded throughout the American continent they did with the help of the missionaries i.e. (Franciscans, Jesuits and Dominicans) and with the help of the Spanish soldiers. They constructed missions and presidios. Many indians came and settled in the missions and became hispanicized. Bear in mind that not all indians were the same, some were sedentary, semi-sedentary and others were nomadic.
The sedentary indians became hispanicized after generations of living in or near the missions. Later they received land titles by the Spanish government. This something that the white protestants could never ever do, now that is barbaric.
He is right that the Portuguese and the Spanish didn’t bring women. That doesn’t mean women didn’t came, just that men were the majority. The reason for this is the Spanish and Portuguese men were open to a relationship with indian and black women, and the increasing mestizos and mulatto women. Many of the Spanish men, for example, left behind in Spain their wife and even children and grew up entire families in the New World with new women. Most were single, but the ones that left families in Spain wasn’t two or three for the authorities trying to stop this early in the colonization era.
The English men were not open to build relationships with non-white and non-Protestant women. As a result of this, the English kept the different races separate just about everywhere they created a colony and brought enough white women for the men to settle down. For example, in order to encourage men to settle Jamaica, the British crown forced many Irish women to move to that island. They also did a similar thing in Australia. The English were very much against mixed marriages among themselves and also didn’t encourage other races to mix too. It was basically the opposite of the Portuguese and the Spanish.
Most of the former Spanish and Portuguese colonies are majority mixed, but most of the former British colonies are overwhelmingly not mixed. The whites also remain purer in former British colonies than in former Spanish or Portuguese colonies. The Spanish and Portuguese even allowed men of color into the priesthood, which for hundreds of years was a very prestigious profession. They even headed parishes where most of the people were white! The English Protestant couldn’t allow men of color from joining the priesthood, not even in parishes where most of the flock was of color! Some of them even complained about this when they visited some of the Spanish colonies.
Africa is different because most of the continent was colonized for only 100 years or so. The Americas have the oldest modern former colonies. Remember that the first global power was Spain and it lasted a while before other European peoples became global power too, in the Americas at expense of Spain.
Anyway, if the Spanish and Portuguese men were as adamant from forming new families with non-white women, they too would had brought enough white women for their men. They didn’t have to because the men were open to non-white women. The Englishmen had another story.
Location: Formerly NYC by week; ATL by weekend...now Rio bi annually and ATL bi annually
1,522 posts, read 2,242,785 times
Reputation: 1041
Quote:
Originally Posted by naners1
You area being disingenuous and obtuse by you lack of knowledge. What do you mean that the Portuguese did not bring any women when they landed in SA? The Portuguese and the Spanish continued to bring women and men throughout the hundreds of years they lived in the area.
It is like saying the English only brought criminals who were let out prison to be sent to Australia. So where do you think all those Australian women you see today came from?
The Spanish when they expanded throughout the American continent they did with the help of the missionaries i.e. (Franciscans, Jesuits and Dominicans) and with the help of the Spanish soldiers. They constructed missions and presidios. Many indians came and settled in the missions and became hispanicized. Bear in mind that not all indians were the same, some were sedentary, semi-sedentary and others were nomadic.
The sedentary indians became hispanicized after generations of living in or near the missions. Later they received land titles by the Spanish government. This something that the white protestants could never ever do, now that is barbaric.
First off, lets talk about lack of knowledge. Prio to colonization, there were no women brought to any shores. To insist that the initial wave of intruders, or colonoziers...however you wanna label them, included droves of women shows a willfully ignorant if not congonitively dissonant POV. And who stated that women were not subsequently brought to the shores to assist with the colonization and claiming of the "new" lands for the respective kingdoms??
There of course were SOME indios that became christian by choice (brainwashing), but to attempt to make it seem like there was not mass forced indoctrination into Christianity by the Latin Christians of indiginous peoples of the multiple lands they colonized is not even worth debating with you. I cannot believe that you are trying to push a narrative that Franciscan, Jesuit and Dominican priests arrived and the masses were just lining up to be baptised. FOH........
I thought most latinos are a mixed race and they copied their European fathers in a lot of cultural stuff, especially religion. In fact, the culture of the mixed races is predominantly European.
To make matters more interesting, most indians that allied with the Spanish were being oppressed by other indian groups. A good example is what happen in Mexico with the Aztecs oppressing other groups that allied with the Spanish to beat the first ones. The indian masses were also very obedient to their rulers, most of which were convinced that Christianity was better than the multiple gods they pray towards (and the human sacrifices especially of the Aztecs).
The upper class of modern Mexico started with a mixed race people created by Hernan Cortes and the children he had with Monctezuma's daughter, who became in holy matrimony. Plus all the conquistadors that also married high ranking Aztec and other indian groups. The upper class became whiter by mixing with European arrivals every generation, but the original mixture is still there and it comes out in DNA studies.
Even in Spain, one of the descendant of Christopher Columbus is at the same time a descendant of Monctezuma. He says it himself based on DNA analysis. Search him up.
There of course were SOME indios that became christian by choice (brainwashing),but to attempt to make it seem like there was not mass forced indoctrination into Christianity by the Latin Christians of indiginous peoples of the multiple lands they colonized is not even worth debating with you. I cannot believe that you are trying to push a narrative that Franciscan, Jesuit and Dominican priests arrived and the masses were just lining up to be baptised. FOH........
You are getting too flaky with your statements about brainwashing and the mass indoctrination of the indigenous people by those evil Latin Catholics.
First and foremost the tactics used to Christianized the indigenous people in the Americas were the same exact methods used by the Catholic church to Christianized the Germanic and Anglo Saxon pagan tribes.
The more difficult ones to Christianized were the Northern Scandinavian countries, which by the way, they only became Christians less than 300 years prior to the American Indigenous people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
