U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [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 09-03-2008, 11:30 PM
 
1,417 posts, read 852,550 times
Reputation: 76

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
I don't think it's really possible to say British or Spanish were better than the other. In Peru, the Spaniards hunted Indians down. In Mexico though it was different because the Indians had large impressive cities and an advanced civiliation which the Spaniards admired. The Spaniards didn't conquer Mexico just on their own -- they had plenty of help in some of the Indians who were fed up with the Aztecs.

It was Indians -- such as the Tlaxcalans who guided the Spaniards to Tenochitlan because they figured the Spaniards could defeat their long-time enemies, and the Aztecs were feared because of the human sacrifices they were doing -- not on themselves but other Indians -- Tlaxcalans and others.

You can see how some of the Indians such as the Tlaxcalans might have seen the Spaniards as a lesser evil especially with a religion that outlawed human sacrifice.

I don't think you can really compare because the Spaniards came at a different time in Europe, a post medieval Europe, and by the time the British came, Europeans (British, Spaniards, etc) had evolved, post Enlightenment, Magna Carta and all that. It all left it's mark though on our societies today.
Oh it is possible to day. Historians even compare both the Spanish and the English to describe how "less bad" the Spanish were to the indians than the English.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-03-2008, 11:33 PM
 
47,576 posts, read 58,722,338 times
Reputation: 22158
Quote:
Originally Posted by amc760 View Post
You dont know where the term "indian giver" comes from?

The British gave the Indians a "gift".
Uncleaned blankets from smallpox patients.

Once they learned the natives were susceptible to European diseases, they used it to their advantage.
Of course all that happened well before microscopes, serological testing, and an understanding of the viral causes of disease.

Back then Europeans didn't know about bacteria much less viruses, so you're giving them a little more credit than is owed them. It was inevitable -- when one population lacks immunity to a pathogen being introduced.

The Indians in Mexico died from small pox also --- so don't say it was only the British. The Indian population dropped to about a million in Mexico with 500,000 to 800,000 African slaves. Interbreeding began to provide immunity and so the mixed population grew.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2008, 11:37 PM
 
47,576 posts, read 58,722,338 times
Reputation: 22158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Californio View Post
Oh it is possible to day. Historians even compare both the Spanish and the English to describe how "less bad" the Spanish were to the indians than the English.
You mean it's possible for the Mexico-can-do-no-wrong types. Indians in Mexico have it pretty bad today. If there's any starvation or malnutrition, it's with Indians -- you can see the Tarahumara Indians in Juarez and Chihuahua, begging on the streets all the time.

Pizarro of Peru should erase any notion that Spaniards were all saints.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2008, 11:40 PM
 
1,417 posts, read 852,550 times
Reputation: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
You mean it's possible for the Mexico-can-do-no-wrong types. Indians in Mexico have it pretty bad today. If there's any starvation or malnutrition, it's with Indians -- you can see the Tarahumara Indians in Juarez and Chihuahua, begging on the streets all the time.

Pizarro of Peru should erase any notion that Spaniards were all saints.
I never claimed they were "really good" to the indians. I said before they committed atrocities like the English. None of what they did was good to begin with, it was just a better treatment of the indians. They did not deliberately drive them out of their land and kill them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2008, 11:41 PM
 
47,576 posts, read 58,722,338 times
Reputation: 22158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Californio View Post
Oh it is possible to day. Historians even compare both the Spanish and the English to describe how "less bad" the Spanish were to the indians than the English.
You mean it's possible for the Mexico-can-do-no-wrong types. Indians in Mexico have it pretty bad today. If there's any starvation or malnutrition, it's with Indians -- you can see the Tarahumara Indians in Juarez and Chihuahua, begging on the streets all the time.

Pizarro of Peru should erase any notion that Spaniards were all saints. Some of the difference was when Europeans came up on large cities and what they saw as a "more civilized" society versus when they encountered more nomadic types. As far as mixing -- that occured in the USA as well, many Americans have Native ancestry, it happened since the days of Pocohantas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2008, 11:43 PM
 
Location: California
3,172 posts, read 5,996,951 times
Reputation: 332
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
Of course all that happened well before microscopes, serological testing, and an understanding of the viral causes of disease.

Back then Europeans didn't know about bacteria much less viruses, so you're giving them a little more credit than is owed them. It was inevitable -- when one population lacks immunity to a pathogen being introduced.

The Indians in Mexico died from small pox also --- so don't say it was only the British. The Indian population dropped to about a million in Mexico with 500,000 to 800,000 African slaves. Interbreeding began to provide immunity and so the mixed population grew.

Again, you are assuming that I'm defending the Spaniards for no reason. You are obviously not really reading my posts.

And you dont need all kinds of technology to know that some diseases are contagious. And you dont need advanced technology to realize some people are more susceptible to it.

People weren't idiots before google.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-04-2008, 08:15 AM
 
Location: Mesa, Az
21,148 posts, read 36,628,664 times
Reputation: 3785
One thing that is overlooked in this thread is that today's English based cultures treat the Mestizo Hispanics better than the contemparary (sp) Spanish based societies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-04-2008, 09:03 AM
 
Location: California
3,172 posts, read 5,996,951 times
Reputation: 332
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArizonaBear View Post
One thing that is overlooked in this thread is that today's English based cultures treat the Mestizo Hispanics better than the contemparary (sp) Spanish based societies.
Doesn't Mexico have a mestizo President? Venezuela has a partially Black president?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-04-2008, 09:15 AM
 
Location: South Bay Native
13,050 posts, read 21,168,230 times
Reputation: 22525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Californio View Post
I never claimed they were "really good" to the indians. I said before they committed atrocities like the English. None of what they did was good to begin with, it was just a better treatment of the indians. They did not deliberately drive them out of their land and kill them.
That's not entirely true....

"They now found themselves opposed to a new kind of human being who waged war outrance, inspired by a terrifying religion which enabled them to use treachery, hypocrisy, cruelty, torture, and massacre in the name of a God of Love; who were indifferent to the suffering they inflicted and superhumanly stoical in bearing suffering which their own conduct entailed for themselves..."

Atahualpa, Pizarro and the Fall of the Inca Empire (http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/white.html - broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-04-2008, 12:22 PM
 
6,011 posts, read 6,728,490 times
Reputation: 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by amc760 View Post
Mexicans didnt suddenly arrive in LA. Mexicans have always been very present in Los Angeles. And it goes both ways, but right now crimes by Mexicans are being highligthed because of the immigration debate.
the4 mexican population was not always that high alot of mexicans fled during the mexican revoloution. and as years went by the population grows and immigration occured as well. im not talking about mexicans who were hear when california was annexed. and even then the mexican population was lower. the fact is most mexicans lived in what is present day mexico. the same with texas nobody wanted to live in those areas.
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

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 > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

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