U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Americas
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 10:24 AM
 
260 posts, read 78,216 times
Reputation: 434

Advertisements

The US didn't STEAL anything from Mexico.


It was won in a war, just like all other countries.


Should Europe pay reparations to the Roman Empire!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 10:32 AM
 
12,519 posts, read 18,609,333 times
Reputation: 19817
Quote:
Originally Posted by southwest88 View Post
The population density of Native Peoples in Aztec lands - especially Tenochtitlan (now Mexico City) was much higher than in comparable native lands that became part of the US. So the Spanish had to deal with the Native Peoples - because they were the source of labor, & knew the local languages, religion, cultures, agriculture, & so on.

& yes, the Spanish incursion was essentially military, with the spiritual wellbeing of the natives an afterthought. In the case of Mexico, all that still doesn't explain how Benito Juárez became president of the Republic of Mexico (his life makes for very interesting reading). If the cases - Mexico & the US - are similar in this regard; the political condition of the Native Peoples - or Mexico even worse - then Where is the Native People president of the US?
I was talking about the colonial period of course, spanish rule. The Spanish dealt with native peoples by enslaving them, subjecting them to spanish rule, and when that didn't work - killing them. Why weren't they sent to reservations? Span wasn't concerned with land except to exploit the land and bring it's riches back to Spain. Colonization wasn't really there thing - exploitation was. There was no noble pursuit by Spain here, just the opposite. But it was a natural progression that Europeans and Indians mix over the course of 350 years. The mexican revolution brought reforms because of this progression, and Mexico was in turmoil for decades, Juarez was one of the liberal reformists that came after the ruthless dictatorship period of Santa Anna.
American Indian as US president - well we have Elizabeth Warren running for president now...yes that's a joke. Hoover's VP however as I understand it was half native american. I think Calvin Coolidge had Indian blood.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:21 PM
 
12,519 posts, read 18,609,333 times
Reputation: 19817
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasRoadkill View Post
The US didn't STEAL anything from Mexico.


It was won in a war, just like all other countries.


Should Europe pay reparations to the Roman Empire!
Of course the very topic is nonsense, which is probably why the OP is "not a member". The conversation moved on from that topic into other legitimate debates - culture, etc. Those are good topics.

If I understand now, the topic is that Spain was good to Native Americans during the colonial phase of the Americas. To that I can only laugh and load up Neil Young's "Cortez the Killer". The Spanish were butchers!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:31 PM
 
Location: New Mexico
3,940 posts, read 1,702,377 times
Reputation: 3673
Default Very different approaches

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
I was talking about the colonial period of course, spanish rule. The Spanish dealt with native peoples by enslaving them, subjecting them to spanish rule, and when that didn't work - killing them. Why weren't they sent to reservations? Span wasn't concerned with land except to exploit the land and bring it's riches back to Spain. Colonization wasn't really there thing - exploitation was. There was no noble pursuit by Spain here, just the opposite. But it was a natural progression that Europeans and Indians mix over the course of 350 years. The mexican revolution brought reforms because of this progression, and Mexico was in turmoil for decades, Juarez was one of the liberal reformists that came after the ruthless dictatorship period of Santa Anna.
American Indian as US president - well we have Elizabeth Warren running for president now...yes that's a joke. Hoover's VP however as I understand it was half native american. I think Calvin Coolidge had Indian blood.
So was I. The Spanish conquistadores were only belatedly concerned about massive die-offs of the Native People populations in Mexico, for instance - because the natives were part of the material wealth that the conquistadores had to account to the Spanish Crown for. The Catholic Church also chimed in on behalf of the natives, but that was a rearguard action, & the state could pay off the church.

& yes, the conquistadores were interested in extracting a pile of money & going back to Spain to live in style. Spain & the following governments became serious about colonizing as Portugal, France & Britain made their own inroads in the Americas (the French & Portuguese seem to have followed the Spanish model).

The difference in approaches (between Spain & Britain, for instance): Nahuatl & Maya & many other language groups are still spoken in Mexico, & those cultures are still in existence. In the US, only the Navajo seem to be thriving (language & culture), as well as in numbers. Many other Native cultures & languages within what are now US boundaries have been lost.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:34 PM
 
6,654 posts, read 2,858,545 times
Reputation: 7991
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasRoadkill View Post
The US didn't STEAL anything from Mexico.


It was won in a war, just like all other countries.


Should Europe pay reparations to the Roman Empire!

Yeah, Europe should pay reparations to the Roman Empire considering how destroying the Empire started the dark ages and all the grief that caused. I demand reparations!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:47 PM
 
Location: New Mexico
3,940 posts, read 1,702,377 times
Reputation: 3673
Default You have to be here in order to count

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
Of course the very topic is nonsense, which is probably why the OP is "not a member". The conversation moved on from that topic into other legitimate debates - culture, etc. Those are good topics.

If I understand now, the topic is that Spain was good to Native Americans during the colonial phase of the Americas. To that I can only laugh and load up Neil Young's "Cortez the Killer". The Spanish were butchers!
Nope, that's a massive overstatement. Spain had a lot of practice in dealing with non-Christian populations (see Islam), & they struck hard @ the Native People's states in Mexico, for instance. They weren't concerned about being outnumbered by the natives, as long as the Spanish could raise allies & have gunpowder, horses, steel. Once the Aztecs & etc. were conquered, the Spanish quit killing natives deliberately - other than working them to death, perhaps.

The outcome that there are still Native Peoples in Mexico is due to the large populations of Native Peoples that existed in Mexico before the Spanish arrived. So large, that significant numbers survived the conquest & the diseases that aided the conquest. (Currently 60% mestizo, 30% Amerindian or predominantly, 9% Caucasian - although recent Mexican censuses have changed the category criteria, & thus the percentages.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 01:25 PM
 
12,519 posts, read 18,609,333 times
Reputation: 19817
Quote:
Originally Posted by southwest88 View Post
Nope, that's a massive overstatement. Spain had a lot of practice in dealing with non-Christian populations (see Islam), & they struck hard @ the Native People's states in Mexico, for instance. They weren't concerned about being outnumbered by the natives, as long as the Spanish could raise allies & have gunpowder, horses, steel. Once the Aztecs & etc. were conquered, the Spanish quit killing natives deliberately - other than working them to death, perhaps.

The outcome that there are still Native Peoples in Mexico is due to the large populations of Native Peoples that existed in Mexico before the Spanish arrived. So large, that significant numbers survived the conquest & the diseases that aided the conquest. (Currently 60% mestizo, 30% Amerindian or predominantly, 9% Caucasian - although recent Mexican censuses have changed the category criteria, & thus the percentages.)
Nope, it's not an overstatment, it's a conclusion.
You already acknowledge the wars, the enslavement, so carry it to the conclusion. You touched on one point however - the impact of European disease which exacted a huge toll on the indigenous population in Central and South America as it did in North America.
Once again - the impact today is due to the type of colonization done by Spain - a.) Settlements exclusively of spanish male soldiers doing what men do, b.) The nature of exploitation (exacting what they can from the land and people), rather than colonization (the development of the land and the displacement of the native population).

The outcome indeed is that Latin American has richly mixed population. But let's not mistake the natural progression to any goodness in the soul of the conquistador during that age.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:12 PM
 
Location: New Mexico
3,940 posts, read 1,702,377 times
Reputation: 3673
Default They say Practice makes perfect

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post


Once again - the impact today is due to the type of colonization done by Spain - a.) Settlements exclusively of spanish male soldiers doing what men do, b.) The nature of exploitation (exacting what they can from the land and people), rather than colonization (the development of the land and the displacement of the native population).

The outcome indeed is that Latin American has richly mixed population. But let's not mistake the natural progression to any goodness in the soul of the conquistador during that age.
The earliest UK colonizers in what became the US were also desperate to wrest a living from the land - they weren't farmers nor woodsmen @ all, as I recall. & they nearly failed - some of the colonies did fail - they couldn't raise crops, the weather was against them, & so on. Without help from Native Peoples, they likely would have died of exposure, disease, hunger.

It was the hunger of colonizers for land to cultivate - population pressure, lack of arable land in Europe, political & religious pressures, politics (in the case of the Irish forced off the land) - & so on, that made a new start preferable to some families.

Spain didn't allow that kind of dissent, or simply expelled any non-conformists. It was also a political blessing for Spain, to allow all the recently armed heroes (from the Reconquest of Spain) an out, & a new place to do or die, very far from the established political order.

Were the various conquests of the Americas a natural progression? Perhaps, but the butcher's bill was very high - & marvelous artifacts & cultures were put to the torch, or died from lack of cadre (mostly in the case of English colonies - due mostly to disease there). Was there any goodness in the soul of the conquistador? Unlikely, & that wasn't his role in Spanish history anyway. He was to fight & conquer, & he had a lot of practice, a good 800 years in the case of Spain.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:23 PM
 
5,508 posts, read 8,168,897 times
Reputation: 4322
Quote:
Originally Posted by 80skeys View Post
I can add a little to this conversation. If you read the story of Nunez Cabeza de Vaca - the two books he wrote as well as the history of his life - you'll see a couple interesting things:

Due to wandering lost for 9 years in the American southwest and northern Mexico in the early 1500s, he came across a lot of native tribes. He spent a lot of time with them and as a result, he grew to appreciate them and respect them and consider them equals.

Fast forward several years, he was sent by the Spanish government to Buenos Aires to lead an expedition across the Andes. On this expedition, his men started pillaging the Indian communities they encountered. When Nunez became aware of it, he stopped them. He forbade them from any further maltreatment of the natives - no more pillaging or stealing or raping. Since he was the man in charge, they had to obey him.

But they didn't like it. So when they returned to Buenos Aires two years later, his men reported him to the officials there and they threw him in jail. He was sent to Spain to be put on trial for treason. He waited several years in Spanish prison for his trial. At the trial he was pardoned and let free.

I don't know if there's any connection between him and the decree by King Charles, but both occurred at the same time, so it would be interesting to research it and see if they were related.
Definitely. I will look into this during the next few months.

Even places like Paraguay retain a much more expansive aspect of the Guaraní tribes than in North America where the English forced so many Natives off their land and to some other area or killed them. Isn't Guaraní an official language in Paraguay and most people have much Guaraní blood mixed in? Guaraní cultural practices are still widespread with the ones from Spain, no?

Reminds me what the Germans did for a time in parts of modern Venezuela. The amounts of Native people that were killed and wipeout there has no comparison with the way the Spanish handled the place before and after the German power left the area. I have no doubt Venezuela had been a German colony from the start, today it would not have much of a Native trace there. It would be similar to the USA. The Germans were bent on getting rid of the Natives and they would had achieved it or gotten very close to that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:36 PM
 
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
6,166 posts, read 9,624,269 times
Reputation: 3206
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasRoadkill View Post
The US didn't STEAL anything from Mexico.

It was won in a war, just like all other countries.
Was the war justified?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Americas
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top