Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Lagos
Nice they can complain for their 4C hair and oppression or something like that.
|
This goes beyond the scope of this thread, but ironically none of that was taken into account. For example, you might had raised your eyebrows if lets say a fully black person was to say they were Spaniard back in colonial times. Yet, there were things that actually contradicted the belief that would had made the eyebrows to be raised.
From Juan Garrido who was a Spanish conquistador in the 1500’s. The fsct that he was black and born in Africa was no impediment for him to become a Spaniard and even take part in the colonization of the Americas. The first place in the Americas where he lived for a few years after crossing the Atlantic (as a Spaniard) was mone other than Santo Domingo.
One could say that really far back in the colonial era, in fact in the beginning years. Touché….
Lets look at another more recent example. The first Spanish Constitution was created in 1810, still when the Spanish Empire existed.
Well then, where was this constitution in effect? It has an article where it says the territory of “The Spains” (aka, Spanish Empire).
The underlined part says “
the Spanish part of Santo Domingo” (which largely is the current Dominican Republic).
Ok, who was a Spaniard? Well, another article explains that.
“
The Spaniards are:
1. All free born men and their sons born in the Spanish territory.
2. Foreigners living in Spanish territory that have naturalized.
3. Foreigners that never naturalized but have been living in Spanish territory for at least 10 years.
4. The slaves the moment they gain their liberty.”
https://www.congreso.es/docu/constit.../ce1812_cd.pdf
Where does it say that to be a Spaniard you needed to have a certain hair type, a certain skin color, a certain nose shape, etc? Now, it’s true that most Dominicans do in part descend from the Spaniards, but that didn’t matter when deciding who was a Spaniard and who wasn’t.
I don’t think that other than in Portuguese colonies (ie. Brazil) black people during colonial times were not considered to be of a essentially European nationality.
That’s like asking why is it that the Spanish Monarchy Palace in Madrid is the only palace in Europe that on its façade there are statues of Monctezuma and Atauahlpa (native american chiefs of the Aztec Empire in Mexico and the Inca Empire in Perú and much of South America)? Ok, so now we are in a different time and maybe these statues were added in modern times of political correctness, right? Um, no. Those statues are original to the palace, that means they were designed and created while the palace was being constructed in the 1700’s.
Now, there were many Native American chiefs in what before 1776 were 13 English colonies up and down the Atlantic coast of North America. Plus, before Buckingham Palace was built in London England still had many colonies around the world with many native chiefs that once ruled those lands. Was anything recognizing them was included when building the msin British Monarchy residence?
The point is that what is held as a historical fact in the USA doesn’t always translate well when it comes to other countries becuse, alas, they have a different history.
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.
