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 08-30-2019, 08:32 AM
 
5,513 posts, read 8,175,352 times
Reputation: 4327

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 80skeys View Post
I can correct you on this. In New Mexico, Navajo language is actually the least thriving and the most in danger of extinction compared to the various Pueblo languages and cultures that are found throughout the state, some of which are very alive and well.

Regarding whether the native populations suffered more at the hands of the Spaniards or the Anglo-Caucasian, history provides the obvious answer: the Anglo-Caucasians committed what was basically genocide. Although the Spaniards had their share of treating the indigenous poorly (see the Pueblo Revolt of 1680 for example), they in general were more capable of living side-by-side with them and didn't come anywhere close to the campaign of extermination that the U.S. government imposed. Likely a big part of this is due to the Catholic Church's desire to increase membership through a policy of conversion. There may be other reasons as well. The Spanish were greedy in terms of gold, but didn't seem to have the type of long-range strategic planning that the Anglo-Caucasian has.
It wasn't just that the Spaniards lived side-by-side the native peoples, most mixed with the native people and adopted cultural practices from the native people too. It wasn't intentionally wipeout and replacing the native population, which was the case with the English, but rather a truly melting pot where the Spanish adopted aspects from the non-whites and the latter adopted aspects from the Spanish. A case in point is the Spanish language which is full of native words from the Spanish Caribbean to different parts of Mexico, Central and South America. Many things have two names, one originally in Spanish and another one originally in the native languages used by residents interchangeably and regardless if the person is native, white, mixed, whatever. For example, a person in Puerto Rico will hear the locals refer to a turtle in two names: tortuga which is in Spanish and hicotea which is in Arawak, and most people aren't even aware that with hicotea they are using a Taino word since often it's thought to all be in Spanish! A tree will have two names originally in Spanish (árbol and palo) and one extra name originally in the Taino language (mata). The same isn't quite true of the English language in North America. That's only one aspect of many where this is evident.

The notion that "a good indian is a dead one" wasn't part of the motto of the Spanish. The same can't be said of the English who tended to deliberately wipeout the natives from their lands. They were so disgusted with the non-white that merely mixing and creating mixed individuals was rejected and looked down by the English. In fact, that was one of the driving forces that obligated the English men from making sure there were plenty of British women in their colonies. Mixing with the natives was basically not an option and the people who did were often socially ostracized.

Last edited by AntonioR; 08-30-2019 at 09:03 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-30-2019, 09:03 AM
 
12,523 posts, read 18,621,625 times
Reputation: 19840
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioR View Post
It wasn't just that the Spaniards lived side-by-side the native peoples, most mixed with the native people and adopted cultural practices from the native people too. It wasn't intentionally wape out and replacing the native population, which was the case with the English, but rather a truly melting pot where the Spanish adopted aspects from the non-whites and the latter adopted aspects from the Spanish. A case in point is the Spanish language which is full of native words from the Spanish Caribbean to different parts of Mexico, Central and South America. Many things have two names, one originally in Spanish and another one originally in the native languages used by residents interchangeably and regardless if the person is native, white, mixed, whatever. For example, a person in Puerto Rico will hear the locals refer to a turtle in two names: tortuga which is in Spanish and hicotea which is in Arawak, and most people aren't even aware that with hicotea they are using a Taino word since often it's thought to all be in Spanish! A tree will have two names originally in Spanish (árbol and palo) and one extra name originally in the Taino language (mata). The same isn't quite true of the English language in North America. That's only one aspect of many where this is evident.

The notion that "a good indian is a dead one" wasn't part of the motto from the Spanish. The same can't be said of the English who tended to deliberately wipeout the natives from their lands. They were so disgusted with the non-white that merely mixing and creating mixed individuals was rejected and looked down by the English. In fact, that was one of the driving forces that obligated the English men from making sure there were plenty of British women in their colonies. Mixing with the natives was basically not an option and the people who did were often socially ostracized.
You have a funny way of describing slavery - "Spaniards lived side-by-side with the native people". Yeah and North American antebellum owners in the south "lived side-by-side" with Africans.

Anyways a contemporary named Las Casas would disagree:
https://www.americanyawp.com/reader/...-peoples-1542/
(to be fair - it describes Spanish behavior in the 1500s in the Caribbean).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2019, 09:07 AM
 
5,513 posts, read 8,175,352 times
Reputation: 4327
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
This has nothing to do with "Spanish Black" legend or any Europe vs. Spain rivalry. I don't care about that. That's old world thinking and if it preoccupies your thoughts, start another thread. Might be interesting.

Jesuits were expelled from the Spanish Empire in 1767 for reasons that are also beyond the scope of this discussion. That it occured is a matter of historical fact and is beyond dispute.
I expected this too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2019, 09:12 AM
 
12,523 posts, read 18,621,625 times
Reputation: 19840
In regards to Spanish treatment of Indians, here is an interesting viewpoint from a modern Pueblo Indian. Mixing in some documented history with oral accounts brought down from his family.

https://www.quora.com/How-did-Spain-...ith-each-other

Fairly damning conclusion on the first paragrah:
"Spain treated the Indigenous peoples of the Americas with extreme violence, death, torture, mutilation, rape, and enslavement. The Spaniards used their superior weapons, guns,cannons, swords,cross bows, to crush any and all resistance by the Indigenous people. The power of the Church over the Indigenous was used to control them as well. Greed not God drove the Spanish Conquistadores and the priests."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2019, 09:29 AM
 
5,513 posts, read 8,175,352 times
Reputation: 4327
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
You have a funny way of describing slavery - "Spaniards lived side-by-side with the native people". Yeah and North American antebellum owners in the south "lived side-by-side" with Africans.
You mean this is not true of an English from the time after he spent several months in Spanish territory? The second paragraph (especially the first sentence of that paragraph) is quite telling to his intended audience: people living in English lands, his own origin.




Present State of the Spanish Colonies Vol 2 by William Walton, 1810.

Now, I agree that is only one eyewitness account when I have many examples by foreigners that saw how the system worked in person and in at least two types of places, the Spanish territories being one of them. But, alas, I'm very busy at the moment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
Anyways a contemporary named Las Casas would disagree:
https://www.americanyawp.com/reader/...-peoples-1542/
(to be fair - it describes Spanish behavior in the 1500s in the Caribbean).
Wasn't De Las Casas debunked for describing mostly battles he never witnessed as if he witness them and claiming the death of the native people was much greater than the actual population estimates of natives in the entire Western Hemisphere? His own contemporaries that wrote and witness the events (some were key parts of many of them) contradicts him on most things he claims and this is done without referring to him for the most part. If anything, he is often cited by people that support the Spanish Black Legend and the English used his works for justifying their encroachment against the Spanish in America.

Perhaps this is a good start, albeit the video is in Spanish (it has subtitles, but they are in Spanish). Its about how the Protestant propaganda against the Spanish made them to use the Spanish Black Legend to justify their actions, including drawings and paintings done originally by these contestant people using De Las Casas as their major source!



You claim to not be based on the Spanish Black Legend, but time and again you seem to prove and use the sources that created this in the first place! Same sources used by the English that were against the Spanish, by the way.

Last edited by AntonioR; 08-30-2019 at 09:41 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2019, 09:35 AM
 
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
6,178 posts, read 9,632,929 times
Reputation: 3220
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunGrins View Post
There was never much of a Mexican identity among the early New Mexico settlers
Not true at all. In speech and culture, New Mexicans were more akin to Mexicans than any other group you can think of. There was constant trade and migration of people between Chihuahua and Santa Fe until the U.S. annexed the territory. The New Mexicans did use some words that traced back to medieval Spain, but the exact same words were also being used by villagers in the state of Chihuaua.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2019, 09:46 AM
 
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
6,178 posts, read 9,632,929 times
Reputation: 3220
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioR View Post
It wasn't intentionally wipeout and replacing the native population, which was the case with the English, but rather a truly melting pot where the Spanish adopted aspects from the non-whites and the latter adopted aspects from the Spanish.
This is correct, but it should be stressed that this co-habitation had problems. The Spaniards did sometimes take Indian slaves and servants. Of course, Indian tribes also took slaves from other tribes prior to any European arrival. And there was fighting between the Spaniard/Mexican settlers and different tribes. Some tribes were more peaceful while others were more prone to aggression.

Quote:
tortuga which is in Spanish and hicotea which is in Arawak, and most people aren't even aware that with hicotea they are using a Taino word
Similar situation in New Mexico. Did you know that the word "coyote" is not a European word at all? It's Nahuatl.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2019, 09:51 AM
 
12,523 posts, read 18,621,625 times
Reputation: 19840
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioR View Post
You mean this is not true of an English from the time after he spent several months in Spanish territory? The second paragraph (especially the first sentence of that paragraph) is quite telling to his intended audience: people living in English lands, his own origin.

Now, I agree that is only one eyewitness account when I have many examples by foreigners that saw how the system worked in person and in at least two types of places, the Spanish territories being one of them. But, alas, I'm very busy at the moment.


Wasn't De Las Casas debunked for describing mostly battles he never witnessed as if he witness them and claiming the death of the native people was much greater than the actual population estimates of natives in the entire Western Hemisphere? If anything, he is often cited by people that support the Spanish Black Legend and the English used his works for justifying their encroachment against the Spanish in America.

Perhaps this is a good start, albeit the video is in Spanish (it has subtitles, but they are in Spanish). Its about how the Protestant propaganda against the Spanish made them to use the Spanish Black Legend to justify their actions, including drawings and paintings done originally by these contestant people using De Las Casas as their major source!

You claim to not be based on the Spanish Black Legend, but time and again you seem to prove and use the sources that created this in the first place! Same sources used by the English that were against the Spanish, by the way.
The issue I was going to mention about De Las Casas was his portrayal of indians as "noble savages", sort of an unrealistic view of the native population who were just as brutal to their neighboring tribes, including the taking of slaves, a problem with historians even today. As I understand however his accounting of atrocities has been historically confirmed, although the numbers may be off. He's also not without sin as his later works seem to suggest, as an alternative, to bring African's into the new world to replace Indian slaves - both obviously being equally reprehensible.

But this Spanish Black Legend, you seem preoccupied with it. It's simply an old school Europe thing like the rivalry between England and France. Does it bias some of the historical accounts? Maybe, but there is also the "white legend" of debate were spanish historians are going too far in idealizing Spanish history, and also the very powerful Spanish monarchy of that time had it's own propaganda channels. For myself, I was raised catholic, so no issue for me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2019, 09:57 AM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,874 posts, read 9,963,032 times
Reputation: 10026
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioR View Post
The notion that "a good indian is a dead one" wasn't part of the motto of the Spanish.
Obviously, because the brutality of the Spanish Conquistadors prevented any rebellious behavior of the conquered. And the nastiest Indians wound up in the American part (Apaches, Comanches, etc). Coincidentally, they would dip into Mexico and raid and plunder. And Mexico complained to the USA to make them into "good Indians."

Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioR View Post
The same can't be said of the English who tended to deliberately wipeout the natives from their lands.
Not true. There was no genocide. 85 - 90% of deaths were attributed to Eurasian diseases.

You are aware that throughout history, there are three mutually exclusive lifestyles.
Regardless of one’s own subjective view of preferable lifestyle, there are mutually exclusive forms of culture and behavior.
1. Migratory hunters / gatherers
2. Nomadic herdsmen
3. Settled farmers

There is no simple solution for all three lifestyles to co-exist on a section of land. Nor is all land suitable.

Is there a moral imperative for settled farmers to exclude the other two cultures from its boundaries? Yes. To allow nomadic herdsmen to run their flocks and herds through his farm would destroy his crops. Likewise, migratory hunters / gatherers hunting his livestock and gathering his crops, would be destructive to the farmer.

This conflict of cultures was the impetus for “civilizing” the Amerindian, so he would fit in with the agriculture based system, with its private property and no trespassing. It was not based on some evil plan to destroy cultural identity, but to deal with the change from a stone age culture to a modern one.
The Indians were not wiped out, but relocated to reservations because their lifestyle were incompatible with the idea of private property and no trespassing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioR View Post
They were so disgusted with the non-white that merely mixing and creating mixed individuals was rejected and looked down by the English.
Total hogwash / fabrication.
Plenty of mixing was going on: Amerindians as well as Africans as with other Europeans (French, German, Dutch, and English).

Of course, under the common law, non-Europeans didn't have standing.
Indians didn't believe that individuals could absolutely own anything, even land, since they relied on adverse possession. Africans who were property could not own property, by definition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioR View Post
In fact, that was one of the driving forces that obligated the English men from making sure there were plenty of British women in their colonies. Mixing with the natives was basically not an option and the people who did were often socially ostracized.
There was always a shortage of women in the colonies, in America and in Australia. Sounds like more fabrication.


= = = = = = = = = =

NO GENOCIDE
The "genocide" myth - Custer and the Little Bighorn
“In the end, the sad fate of America's Indians represents not a crime but a tragedy, involving an irreconcilable collision of cultures and values. Despite the efforts of well-meaning people in both camps, there existed no good solution to this clash. The Indians were not prepared to give up the nomadic life of the hunter for the sedentary life of the farmer. The new Americans, convinced of their cultural and racial superiority, were unwilling to grant the original inhabitants of the continent the VAST PRESERVE of land required by the Indians’ way of life. The consequence was a conflict in which there were few heroes, but which was far from a simple tale of hapless victims and merciless aggressors. To fling the charge of genocide at an entire society serves neither the interests of the Indians nor those of history.”
There is another controversy over the number of Amerindians before the arrival of the Europeans - some historians claiming as high as 10 millions (or even billions!!).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States
USA : 3,794,101 sq mi, 640 acres to a sq.mi, or 2,428,224,640 acres.

According to the Department of the Interior, a hunter / gatherer, such as a tribal Indian, needed 10 sq. mi. per person to sustain themselves. (This was for sizing reservations) (Think of a circle with a radius of 1.78 miles - for each person)

Based on 3,794,101 sq. mi., that’s only enough for a population of 379,410 indigenous people living a primitive nomadic lifestyle.

It's only an approximation, but also remember that the USA isn't uniformly good for hunting / gathering, so estimates of population per area may vary. Even if that figure is off by a factor of ten, that still sets the maximum population at 3.79 million indigenous people living a primitive lifestyle.
. . .
Was there a justification to eject the indigenous people from under utilized lands?
The math is simple : use 6,400 acres to support ONE hunter / gatherer, or use 6,400 acres to support 57,600 by modern agriculture.

(Assuming 1 acre supports 9 people by agriculture; a low estimate. Some crops yield even higher harvests - supporting 11 people per acre and more.)

[This article claims 3,333 people per acre supported by agriculture:
http://www.splendidtable.org/story/h...s-in-the-city]

The moral imperative is still survival. For more abundant life, it is moral to displace the aborigine from underused lands. The 320+ million Americans owe a debt of gratitude to the European immigrants, with their advanced agriculture practices.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2019, 10:39 AM
 
1,183 posts, read 510,764 times
Reputation: 1033
So much misinformation in this thread I can't even finish it
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