Hispanic identity and the black legend

[uhura]

I am sure the history about the genocide commited by spain over the native people of Mexico and others people in America, can't be forget just with the declarations of others that wants to hide it below the carpet. We have here, the great luck of spanish people that found a world and took it withouth effort because the myth of the mexicas waiting for them, ready to please and surrender the kingdom as their god quetzalcoatl asked before to do. The others tribes, withouth that myth, fighted bravely against the spanish invaders. The chroniclers , registered that well. After the invasion was succefully commitement, of course them want to build accordingly with their own cities the new ones in america, that wasn't withouth a goal, stayed an lived in the new land. There was a separation between spanish and natives into the cities. When the spanish started the cast hierarchy, the half-blood finally annoying for that racial division, promote the separation from spain. Natives never got a social status.

 

[msante]

I just wanted to mention that we (the Spanish SOTT group) talked about this topic ("La leyenda negra") in our last SRN. It was shocking to see the reaction of anger it provoked in many listeners. Even some of our regular listeners were extremely skeptical of the information we provide (some of this information has been posted in this thread before).

The fact is that, as one advances in the investigation of this topic, it becomes more evident that here there was a deliberate action to falsify history and create an image of the Spanish empire as the most cruel and bloodthirsty ever known, the one that carried out an unprecedented genocide, and plundered and annihilated rich indigenous cultures without the slightest consideration.

The lies propagated in official history range from the most ridiculous, such as making reference to the murder of 20 million indigenous people, when today all studies indicate that in ALL of the American continent (an extension of thousands and thousands of kilometers) there were in 1492 between 13 and 14 million (Anexo:Población indígena de América - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre ). In order for about 55,000 Spanish settlers (who arrived in America during the 16th century, see notes below [*]) to annihilate 20 million indigenous people, an average of ~550 per day for 100 years should have been killed. The numbers do not close…

On the other hand, several studies indicate that it is highly probable that more than 95% of the indigenous mortality was due to European pathogens brought by settlers (Descubierto el misterio del "cocoliztli", la epidemia que mató a millones de aztecas en México y cuyo origen se ha debatido durante un siglo).

[*] The number comes from studies by Peter Boyd-Bowman who drew up the list of migrants on the basis of ship documentation and other secondary sources. The highest numbers of settlers in the period are close to 250,000, and was established by Pierre and Huguete Chaunu. They, unlike Boyd-Bowman, used an indirect method by taking the number of trips and the maximum number of passengers on each ship. (Historia social latinoamericana - p. 35 and 36)

Another important fact was that Charles I stopped the conquest between 1550 and 1556; during this period happened something very unusual for what was the imperial yearnings of the time: during the so-called Valladolid Controversy, there was a debate about the rights of Spain as a conquering nation over the American territories, the legality of its actions, and the rights of the conquered peoples. Charles I even considered the possibility of abandoning the conquered territories.

It is speculated that the king's Catholic faith and fear of condemnation may have played a role in this event. Even so, it must be considered that, by the moral standards of the time, it was an almost unprecedented act. The English, Dutch, and French conquerors (the latter perhaps to a lesser extent) practiced a more "classical" imperialism (so to speak), based on predation and plunder.

It seems that there is a lot of information available for anyone interested in the subject, and that, in intellectual circles, it is a fact that "La leyenda negra" is a tendentious and definitely false version of what happened in the territories conquered by the Spaniards. There are also many records that show that the standard of living of Spanish Americans (this includes mestizos, creoles, and Indians) was higher than that of several European cities (Alexander of Humboldt does a great job of gathering information about life in the colonies of all America), that in science and culture the Spaniards did feats in America, and that from the moment the first American "liberators" began to raise their voices to the cry of "independence," a large majority of the indigenous people did not support independence, in fact many fought in support of the Spanish forces.

Were there abuses during the conquest? There is no doubt. Were the Laws of Burgos and later the Laws of the Indies strictly respected? Surely not. The reality is that beyond the fact that the oligarchy installed in America committed abuses, it seems that it was not a policy of the Spanish crown to exterminate or enslave the Indians, but to civilize them and incorporate as citizens. Was it right/wrong to try to impose Spanish culture and religion on the natives of America? We can debate about this, but the fact is that the conquests and expansions of empires have always happened throughout history, and this clearly has its consequences. But this conquest can be carried out in 2 different ways: barbarically and ruthlessly, seeking to plunder and exploit, or with civilizing spirits seeking to expand the empire's borders.

 

[Alejo]

I am sure the history about the genocide commited by spain over the native people of Mexico and others people in America, can't be forget just with the declarations of others that wants to hide it below the carpet. We have here, the great luck of spanish people that found a world and took it withouth effort because the myth of the mexicas waiting for them, ready to please and surrender the kingdom as their god quetzalcoatl asked before to do. The others tribes, withouth that myth, fighted bravely against the spanish invaders. The chroniclers , registered that well. After the invasion was succefully commitement, of course them want to build accordingly with their own cities the new ones in america, that wasn't withouth a goal, stayed an lived in the new land. There was a separation between spanish and natives into the cities. When the spanish started the cast hierarchy, the half-blood finally annoying for that racial division, promote the separation from spain. Natives never got a social status.

Hi uhura,

I think there's a lot of information that you may find very useful and informative, particularly about the story of Mexico. There's a lot of information that I personally am still going through but here's a great channel that deals particularly with the history of Mexico, it's the Centro de Estudios de historia de Mexico, They deal very well and in an academic manner with some of the myths and truths that are mixed into what we know about the story of Mexico. It has been truly fascinating and shattering at the same time. There are plenty of sources.

My own experience can be a mirror to what you're going through, I Knew for a fact that the story of Spain in America had been one of conquest, occupation and finally a liberation from the oppressors. The spanish had come to America to plunder and murder and steal, and having seen some of the information that is presented I found myself at a loss, a huge part of what I considered a cased closed in my mind about my position in the historical continuum had to be revised.

Keep in mind that in most Viceroyalties in the Americas were actually ruled by the Creole (criollos, mestizos) elite, which were sons of the spaniards and the native population. The very fact that there was such a large mixture of races, puts into question the idea that the spanish annihilated the native population of America.

How could there had been mixture, and even existing current native peoples, if there was no one to intermix with? Compare south america with an incredibly diverse population, with the USA for instance where the caucasian people are the majority. In the North there was no one to intermix with due to several factors, one of them being climate. But another one being that the English and French seemed to have had the approach you attribute to the spanish.

 

[Alejo]

I know I mentioned that I was going to continue with the story of Peru, and I will eventually.

But I recently watched this interview with Francisco Nuñez del Arco, author of the book Quito fue España (Quito was Spain). He does a very good analysis that echoes what has been discussed in this thread. I will try to do the interview some justice but I highly recommend anyone that speaks spanish to take a listen, Auto translate to english seems to work fairly ok. So here he is:

So this guy resonated with me particularly because I got to feel that there was something common in Latinamerica after I traveled to another Latin-American country, which is how he opens the explanation of how he got into researching the subject.

He starts by explaining how the spanish came to be in America and how it was part of an expansionist effort that all the empires in Europe were experiencing. He uses this to mention that if it hadn't been the spanish it would have been the english or the french ruling south America eventually.

He goes into great depths to explain the legal and administrative structures of the viceroyalties in America and how they were not Colonies in the sense that they were not dependent on a large metropolis in the peninsula. The crown in the peninsula did not see America as a exploiting ground to be simply sown for resources, but rather as land to be developed. The viceroyalties had a great degree of independence and most of the rulers of the region were mestizos.

Something I hadn't mentioned previously that I found curious was that, Christopher Columbus had a special power in America, and foreseeing that he would develop into a feudal lord over all the new territories and turn them into tyrannies the Crown in Spain decided to change it up and establish the Viceroyalties. Something that created a truly federal system that is visible and evident once one looks at the way the empire ran in relation to the crown in the peninsula.

He goes on to describe the role of the cabildos and the local governing bodies in dictating law in their own territory. Overall he does a good job at describing what the legal life was like in Spain, which to him included all of the territories in America, the Mediterranean and Asia.

Something else of interest that he adds is the role of the Liberators such as San Martin and Simon Bolivar. He notes that for most people in Latinamerica these are canonical figures that can't be touched at all as they're seen as saints, but he actually considers them as the victimizers and as traitors.

But he adds details that dispels the myths of the "grassrootness" of the independence efforts, for instance he notes that Bolivar had to force people into his army, even getting to the point of straight up kidnapping them from safe havens, such as churches. San Martin for instance sent Bolivar a letter at some point in which he was mentioning the fact that he had no troops, to please send him some. To which Bolivar replied saying, I don't have anyone either.

I like something he says at some point regarding the righteousness of the independence movements. He says that "by their fruits ye shall know them". And the comparing what was Spain (understanding America as part of Spain) to what became of the continent, it's easy to see that the effort wasn't aimed at making the region better. He tends to see the English hand behind much of the effort that would make the entire region extremely easy to manipulate and control. And it's imposible to argue with that logic seeing what has become of Latinamerica today,

We've spoken previously about the fact that what seems to have happened was a color revolution and a propaganda effort that is centuries old and that very few people seem to have taken the effort to correct. Sort of like a Balkanization of Latinamerica, but he notes that due to the time frame, what actually happened was more of a Latinamericanization of the Balkans.

The war for independence wasn't a war against the peninsula, the war was against Spain, that is America. The battles were fought by the Liberators against people who were loyal to the crown. Think of ISIS in Syria claiming to be fighting against oppressive Assad, and the way they fight this "liberating" war is by attacking the very people of the country that they're supposed to be liberating. That's how things look to him, which to me kind of makes sense. Again, considering the fact that Bolivar himself, today a figure loved in Colombia and Venezuela and elsewhere, was;t allowed to come back to those very countries as they did not want what he offered i.e. a dictator for life status of all the territories "liberated".

He insists that we cannot seek independence from our blood by hating spain as we were spanish citizens, all of us, and we're not anymore, perhaps (although it seems rather evident) due to an international effort to weaken one of the greatest empires the world had seen. And I like something he says where he recognizes the psychological traumatic value of constantly identifying as the victims of an evil spanish empire. When in reality, it seems more that the region was the victim of the very people who we have been taught to love and admire, our liberators.

I'll carry on with Peru next time around.

Thanks for reading.

 

[msante]

I am sure the history about the genocide commited by spain over the native people of Mexico and others people in America, can't be forget just with the declarations of others that wants to hide it below the carpet. We have here, the great luck of spanish people that found a world and took it withouth effort because the myth of the mexicas waiting for them, ready to please and surrender the kingdom as their god quetzalcoatl asked before to do. The others tribes, withouth that myth, fighted bravely against the spanish invaders. The chroniclers , registered that well. After the invasion was succefully commitement, of course them want to build accordingly with their own cities the new ones in america, that wasn't withouth a goal, stayed an lived in the new land. There was a separation between spanish and natives into the cities. When the spanish started the cast hierarchy, the half-blood finally annoying for that racial division, promote the separation from spain. Natives never got a social status.

Hi uhura, I can understand that it is difficult to question our deepest beliefs, those ideas we have grown up with, and even we have erected part of our identity based on them. But if there is one thing we have learned in this forum and with all the material shared, it is that much of the great "truths" we have been taught, are essentially great lies. Think about this for a second: Jesus did not exist as such, our historical chronology have 400 years surplus, we are not the result of an accidental cosmic "flatulence" but the product of intelligent intervention, evolution as we have been taught does not exist, we are not at the top of the food chain nor are we the center of creation,... Considering just this small list, it is not difficult to imagine that for those who embark on the task of disassembling them, this path becomes a painful and distressing process of personal deconstruction, but IMHO this process is fundamental for those of us who do not wish to live immersed in a deceptive web of lies. Perhaps the issue of the Spanish conquest deserves the effort on our part to at least consider that not everything we have been told about it is true.

My own experience can be a mirror to what you're going through, I Knew for a fact that the story of Spain in America had been one of conquest, occupation and finally a liberation from the oppressors. The spanish had come to America to plunder and murder and steal, and having seen some of the information that is presented I found myself at a loss, a huge part of what I considered a cased closed in my mind about my position in the historical continuum had to be revised.

Same here, my first reaction was defensive trying to rationalize the new information and adapt it to the model of conquest that I already had in my mind. So we're all in the same boat here...

 

[munaychasumaq]

One reason Costa Rica has so much African admixture is because slaves under British colonies who managed to escape would take boats to reach the Spanish colonies (i.e. Costa Rica) where they would beg to become part of the Spanish Kingdom because they actually had rights as slaves under the Spanish Crown. All the testimonies agreed in one thing - brutal British masters were the worst.

Interesting point!That give us an idea about the protection of rights of the local people in the Spanish colonies.

 

[hlat]

There's a section that talks specifically about the arrival of the conquistadors, towards the end of the book Who We Are and How We Got Here by David Reich, but I can't remember the specific conclusions. However, not specific to the conquistadors but generally speaking, groups and races have undergone all sorts of mixing over tens of thousands of years so that there's no pure race or group today or even in the last thousand years, and a group's current location does not mean their ancestors were from the same location.

 

[Alejo]

So finally got around to write about the history of what is known today as Peru and parts of Ecuador and even Brazil and Chile, which back in the times of the crown it was known as the Viceroyalty of Peru.

In this interview we see historian Mauricio Novoa by Aldo Mariategui for Capital TV, a peruvian channel.

So the first thing they note is that Peru was not a colony in the same sense as the colonies in the north by the english were. The legal status of the viceroyalties were much like the kingdoms of Navarro or Aragon or Cataluña.

He goes on to discuss something already mentioned, after the interviewer asks him a question regarding the private efforts of the conquest, he responds that yes indeed there were non-governmental organizations, so to speak, that participated in the conquest with various resources. But foreseeing that these would want to establish a contract with the crown for the newly discovered and conquered land that would turn the new territories into feudal systems, the crown changed up the contracts and turned the new territories into viceroyalties. This was already mentioned in terms of the fears of the king and queen with the power that Columbus seemed to hold.

Then he talks about the difference in treatment of the Habsburg (until 1700) and the Bourbons (from there on out) relative to the Americas, but the historian corrects him and explains that legally, there was no difference.

He asks why there were no Creole viceroys during the Habsburg , and he explains that the viceroy was more of a public figure as the real power was held by a Royal Audience (real audiencia) which was actually composed of Creoles. In fact, he mentioned that some of the viceroys (which I think "ruled" for only 4 years) complained that they had no real power against the creole power structures of the viceroyalties. Something that I think dispels the myth that only iberian spaniards ruled the americas.

Then he goes on to explain that some of the directly above changed once the Burbons arrived in power. As they sought to consolidate power and centralize it more, in order to have more influence on the viceroyalties as, what they received in terms of taxes and returns from the ultramar territories was actually very little.

So the military was restructured in order to increase taxes and this is what generated the Tupac Amaru's (who was actually a spaniard and paid no tributes to the crown) rebellion, as they taxed his business routes, so they say... he rebelled because they touched his pockets. This taxation effort to them is what alienated the crown to the creoles and this may have fed some of the independence sentiments.

They go on to describe some of the own internal corruption in the viceroyalty, but clarify that back in that historic context it was somewhat acceptable. They also speak to the Jesuit expulsion.

Then they speak about San Martin, who lived in spain from a very young age, who suddenly became a revolutionary against Spain. They speculate about it a little bit, and conclude that there was perhaps his roots to Argentina, and the alienation of the Burbons against the Creoles. Which is something interesting to consider in light of the possibility of the Color revolution idea, as they also mention the Free Mason idea where San Martin actually becomes an english secret agent after the Napoleonic wars against Spain. Although he said that there's very few documents, but he does say that the english influence on the independence sentiment is completely undeniable.

He goes into some depth into the role of the Napoleonic wars in Spain and the void it created and the uncertainty and the inability of the crown to hold control of the viceroyalties on the desire for independence.

Something else that they mention is that the people in the Deep Spain "España Profunda" actually looks a lot like the mountains of Peru, even the clothing style, only differing in some colors but the style was much like the Peruvian Folklore. Which resonates to what Windmill Knight said earlier in this thread about the similarities between Mexico and Spain.

At some point one of the callers asks: "why are we taught the history of Peru in such a different way, why is it so different than what you're describing?" And he responds that there is an ideological impetus for teaching history in such a way, particularly after the Marxist influence on the country. Something very interesting he says is that in order for them to be able to do that they needed to deny 300 years of history or turn them into a dark period, which is akin to killing your father in order to validate your ideological goal today. Which I thought was fascinating.

All in all I hope I did the video justice. As there's so much more in it. For instance, regarding the inquisition he says that the policy was in fact that the office could not prosecute indians as they were recent converts and the goal was to actually help them transition not to judge them. He claims that the figure of people who were condemned under the inquisition was close to 100 - 200 in 300 years, and the majority of those were english or dutch pirates as they were actual heretics.

I hope to get into the conquest period (1492-1600), earlier in the history of the empire which is a large point of contention. The viceroyalties seem to have been quite successful and prosper. But the question a lot of people have, me included, is what was needed in order to get to that point?

 

[Chu]

Then they speak about San Martin, who lived in spain from a very young age, who suddenly became a revolutionary against Spain. They speculate about it a little bit, and conclude that there was perhaps his roots to Argentina, and the alienation of the Burbons against the Creoles. Which is something interesting to consider in light of the possibility of the Color revolution idea, as they also mention the Free Mason idea where San Martin actually becomes an english secret agent after the Napoleonic wars against Spain. Although he said that there's very few documents, but he does say that the english influence on the independence sentiment is completely undeniable.

Something else of interest that he adds is the role of the Liberators such as San Martin and Simon Bolivar. He notes that for most people in Latinamerica these are canonical figures that can't be touched at all as they're seen as saints, but he actually considers them as the victimizers and as traitors.

But he adds details that dispels the myths of the "grassrootness" of the independence efforts, for instance he notes that Bolivar had to force people into his army, even getting to the point of straight up kidnapping them from safe havens, such as churches. San Martin for instance sent Bolivar a letter at some point in which he was mentioning the fact that he had no troops, to please send him some. To which Bolivar replied saying, I don't have anyone either.

I'm not surprised by the reactions listeners are having. If all this is true, then it goes against everything that every Latin American was taught (brainwashed with?) since a very early age! I mean, who would dare touch Bolivar and San Martín? But it does make sense... History repeats itself.

 

[Tuatha de Danaan]

So finally got around to write about the history of what is known today as Peru and parts of Ecuador and even Brazil and Chile, which back in the times of the crown it was known as the Viceroyalty of Peru.

In this interview we see historian Mauricio Novoa by Aldo Mariategui for Capital TV, a peruvian channel.

So the first thing they note is that Peru was not a colony in the same sense as the colonies in the north by the english were. The legal status of the viceroyalties were much like the kingdoms of Navarro or Aragon or Cataluña.

He goes on to discuss something already mentioned, after the interviewer asks him a question regarding the private efforts of the conquest, he responds that yes indeed there were non-governmental organizations, so to speak, that participated in the conquest with various resources. But foreseeing that these would want to establish a contract with the crown for the newly discovered and conquered land that would turn the new territories into feudal systems, the crown changed up the contracts and turned the new territories into viceroyalties. This was already mentioned in terms of the fears of the king and queen with the power that Columbus seemed to hold.

Then he talks about the difference in treatment of the Habsburg (until 1700) and the Bourbons (from there on out) relative to the Americas, but the historian corrects him and explains that legally, there was no difference.

He asks why there were no Creole viceroys during the Habsburg , and he explains that the viceroy was more of a public figure as the real power was held by a Royal Audience (real audiencia) which was actually composed of Creoles. In fact, he mentioned that some of the viceroys (which I think "ruled" for only 4 years) complained that they had no real power against the creole power structures of the viceroyalties. Something that I think dispels the myth that only iberian spaniards ruled the americas.

Then he goes on to explain that some of the directly above changed once the Burbons arrived in power. As they sought to consolidate power and centralize it more, in order to have more influence on the viceroyalties as, what they received in terms of taxes and returns from the ultramar territories was actually very little.

So the military was restructured in order to increase taxes and this is what generated the Tupac Amaru's (who was actually a spaniard and paid no tributes to the crown) rebellion, as they taxed his business routes, so they say... he rebelled because they touched his pockets. This taxation effort to them is what alienated the crown to the creoles and this may have fed some of the independence sentiments.

They go on to describe some of the own internal corruption in the viceroyalty, but clarify that back in that historic context it was somewhat acceptable. They also speak to the Jesuit expulsion.

Then they speak about San Martin, who lived in spain from a very young age, who suddenly became a revolutionary against Spain. They speculate about it a little bit, and conclude that there was perhaps his roots to Argentina, and the alienation of the Burbons against the Creoles. Which is something interesting to consider in light of the possibility of the Color revolution idea, as they also mention the Free Mason idea where San Martin actually becomes an english secret agent after the Napoleonic wars against Spain. Although he said that there's very few documents, but he does say that the english influence on the independence sentiment is completely undeniable.

He goes into some depth into the role of the Napoleonic wars in Spain and the void it created and the uncertainty and the inability of the crown to hold control of the viceroyalties on the desire for independence.

Something else that they mention is that the people in the Deep Spain "España Profunda" actually looks a lot like the mountains of Peru, even the clothing style, only differing in some colors but the style was much like the Peruvian Folklore. Which resonates to what Windmill Knight said earlier in this thread about the similarities between Mexico and Spain.

At some point one of the callers asks: "why are we taught the history of Peru in such a different way, why is it so different than what you're describing?" And he responds that there is an ideological impetus for teaching history in such a way, particularly after the Marxist influence on the country. Something very interesting he says is that in order for them to be able to do that they needed to deny 300 years of history or turn them into a dark period, which is akin to killing your father in order to validate your ideological goal today. Which I thought was fascinating.

All in all I hope I did the video justice. As there's so much more in it. For instance, regarding the inquisition he says that the policy was in fact that the office could not prosecute indians as they were recent converts and the goal was to actually help them transition not to judge them. He claims that the figure of people who were condemned under the inquisition was close to 100 - 200 in 300 years, and the majority of those were english or dutch pirates as they were actual heretics.

I hope to get into the conquest period (1492-1600), earlier in the history of the empire which is a large point of contention. The viceroyalties seem to have been quite successful and prosper. But the question a lot of people have, me included, is what was needed in order to get to that point?

Thank you Alejo,

Very educational and totally different from my school history books. As Chu says. History repeats Itself................ everywhere.

 

[gdpetti]

British, Jewish... it all seems the same in terms of a desire to expand control.. working in the shadows, then after victory, change the history books, movies etc to make you look good... utilize the usual tropes and archetypes as so many still do today, promoting the Royal Family... in image only, not substance of their Nazi support/connections, et al... birds of a feather... same clubhouse.... same sort of propaganda... same 'Stalinization'.... same with the American Empire today... say with ISIS... the best enemy is one you control. The Brits, like the Jews, were never a dominate state in terms of size, so they learn how to work around their shortcomings, utilizing others to assist them... like the Americans later... who do the same today... working with those birds of a feather in every country we can. Same pattern seems in play.

Really don't know much about Bolivar or San Martin... but all of this seems the same sort of personnel on the chessboard, and the imperialists know how to play their game.... and this follows the same pattern here in Purgatory too, when you have a controlled field of play, the only real competition is 'in-house'.. in the clubhouse.... so the Brits attack their real competition in Europe, as the other world empires were in decay by then.... giving their egos a real power boost... to this day... only recently has China returned to the game.... pushed up by their Western imperial friends, same with Russia during WW2.... it all seems an inside game... and these other discussions aren't usually seen or heard from here in the empire zone.

 

[Alejo]

I'm not surprised by the reactions listeners are having. If all this is true, then it goes against everything that every Latin American was taught (brainwashed with?) since a very early age! I mean, who would dare touch Bolivar and San Martín? But it does make sense... History repeats itself.

Yes, that is something that has been crossing my mind as I look into it. The notion of a repeating syndrome, particularly in Latinamerica, it may sound too abstract but it’s like, for the sin of having gone through the independence without question, our hell is to be the constant puppet and to have leaders who are corrupt and vassals of the US.

It’s shocking to me how someone like Juan Guaido can come and claim to be fighting for his people by aligning himself with Washington.

And yes, in summary what I’ve concluded so far is that, Spain was prosperous at the time of the viceroyalties, which was perhaps the most prosperous the region ever was, certainly more than today, in terms of western development. This prosperity had to be buried and denied and twisted by cherrypicking only certain aspects of what must have taken place during the conquest, in order for the victors and their patrons in England and elsewhere to validate their heinous acts against their own people.

This necessitated severing the connection in values and traditions that we all share and divide the region into smaller states that were easier to influence and manipulate. We’re talking of about 300 years of history that for most people are settled and thus unworthy of questioning or even inspection.

The vacuum in values and tradition and kingly figures had to be replaced and it was done with the liberators and the indigenismo, where all we are and have been is native Americans and the rest was imposed by force, so it’s a tricky psychological state to be in, constantly denying aspects of your psyche and even hating them.

This situation in turn created the need for romanticizing the liberators and turn them into unquestionably heroic figures who’d done no wrong.

This added with a bit of Marxist influence and you have the perfect recipe for a centuries old victim mentality that prevails to this day.

Would we be better off today if we were Spain still? Which is what some have turned the information into. I don’t know, look at Spain today and realize that they’re as much a puppet as everyone else, we’d simply be part of NATO, but who knows?

What I do know is that we wouldn’t be, perhaps, in such a psychological state and that could make enough of a difference.

I don’t know but this entire subject has made me think in something the C’s said once about the importance of having a clear connection with our ancestors, and in the case of the American people’s south of the border, well... it points to Spain and Europe, at least half of it. The other one definitely remains in America with the natives, but why deny and close the door to it?

And I don’t see another way to achieving a clear connection other than truth. Even if it’s to identify errors and mistakes or atrocities, or to escape illusions.

And I understand why people are resistant to it. One, it’s a sacred cow that is killer that now creates the need for work and effort, and the other it calls one to responsibility for not being a victim anymore and all you’ve done, excusing yourself on this victim status now has no justification and that’s a rough place to be in.

 

[Stella Marys]

Este tema es candente al igual que el tema sobre quién fue Jesucristo. Bueno, es de esperar reacciones ya que vivimos desde que nacemos bajo una estructura de mentiras y basamos nuestra interpretación del mundo según esas creencias. En parte se entiende esa resistencia... No conocía sobre esta leyenda negra. Me enteré el sábado pasado en el programa de sott en español y fué muy esclarecedor. En nuestra educación escolar nos enseñan que Cristóbal Colón era un navegante que tenía ciertos planes científicos, digamos, y con el apoyo de los reyes católicos finalmente descubre América casualmente y este es el acontecimiento que abre las puertas a todo el saqueo, muerte y dominación. Y queda impregnada en nuestra conciencia colectiva que la culpa la tiene Colón! Estuve buscando información sobre él y parece que hay mucha contradicción en lo que refiere a su origen, idioma,etc... Me llama la atención este personaje. Realmente quién era Cristóbal Colón? El significado de su nombre es sugerente... [wikipedia dice: "Según el origen genovés, abrumadoramente apoyado por la mayoría de los historiadores, Cristóbal Colón sería la castellanización del italiano Cristoforo Colombo.3685 Cristoforo puede traducirse por Cristóbal, el que lleva a Cristo, y Colón en italiano significa paloma.86 En una de las firmas de Colón se puede leer «Xpo Ferens», que, según algunos investigadores, significa «portador de Cristo».] Seguiré de cerca este tema ya que una manera de conectarnos con nuestros antepasados es poder dilucidar la Verdad que está mezclada con la mentira (para que el engaño sea efectivo!). Sería la forma de transformar esta leyenda negra en claridad. Es el camino para no seguir siendo víctimas... Gracias por ayudar a encender fuegos de esperanza!!! flores

 

[OrangeScorpion]

The Spanish philosopher Gustavo Bueno established the distinction between generating empires and predatory empires in his book "Spain versus Europe". An article published in es.sott.net explains this distinction:

Generating empires share language and technology with intervening societies. While predatory empires use their own technology to destroy the reality of the intervened society. One characteristic that manifests the nature of predatory empires is the denial of biological mixing with the indigenous population of the occupied territory. This can be verified in the colonization of North America by the English Empire.

Empires are generators if, despite actions of colonial exploitation, they turn colonized societies into fully-fledged societies. In other words, it favours the transformation, as a universal empire, of the societies intervened in culturally and socio-economically developed political societies. The Empire of Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire and the Spanish Empire would be clear examples. Thus, "through its particular acts of violence, extortion and even enslavement, by means of which these universal empires developed, the truth is that the Roman Empire ended up granting citizenship to practically all the urban nuclei of its domains, and the Spanish Empire, which always considered its subjects as free men, propitiated the precise conditions for the transformation of its Viceroyalties or provinces into constitutional Republics" (Bueno, 1999, p. 465-466). […]

The Spanish colonizers of The Spanish Golden Age taught the indigenous population to read and write in Spanish. The issue of language is crucial. Knowledge of a European language gave access to cultural manifestations translated into this language and allowed integration into Hispanic institutions. For their part, the British and French predatory empires thwarted African political development. Thus, Harris (2008) explains that "when the slave trade ended, Europeans forced Africans to work for them in the fields and mines. Meanwhile, the colonial authorities made every effort to keep Africa subjugated and backward, encouraging tribal wars, limiting Africans' education to the most rudimentary level possible and, above all, preventing the colonies from developing an industrial infrastructure that could have allowed them to compete in the world market once they achieved political independence. As clear predatory empires, they denied their technologies to the colonized and hindered their political progress in exploiting their resources. […]

As mentioned above, many Spanish people, mostly men, married indigenous women. Mestizaje and evangelization were the phenomena that prevailed, which is far removed from the policy of extermination practiced by other empires such as the English. The indigenous population descended mainly due to the mixture with the Spanish and diseases brought from Europe. It was not a massacre, much less a programmed massacre aimed at the destruction of a group (as in the modern concept of genocide). On the contrary, in the American territories occupied by the English there were almost no autochthonous populations left.

In this regard José Javier Esparza writes that "for most English immigrants, Protestants, the Indian is an inferior being, son of Satan, and as such must be subdued and exterminated. There is no possibility of redemption through baptism. In Anglo-Saxon America the Indians are exterminated. There one can speak clearly of genocide: there was a racial slaughter under the pretext of supposedly biblical motivations. Today the few survivors of that are in reserves. On the contrary, in Hispanic America there are still millions of Indians, and five hundred years later many of the indigenous languages are still circulating. And that was possible because Spanish theologians and jurists recognized that Indians had the right to home and farm and to work for a fair wag.

The Spanish invented a new model in America that neither the Portuguese nor the Turks had applied. The Spanish approximates the model of the Roman Empire but maintains a substantial difference: slavery was prohibited. The evangelizing imprint of the presence of the Spanish in America prevented this institution.

This concern for the dignity of the indigenous population did not exist in the later colonial era. Only in this context could the inevitable abuses be denounced. In this line, the Ordinance for the treatment of the Indians or laws of Burgos were dictated, in which the indigenous slavery was abolished in December 1512. Indians had the status of free men. Later, in 1542, the so-called New Laws were also enacted on "the governance of the Indies and good treatment and conservation of the Indians".

All the dominant empires have had their Black Legend. Within this framework, many seek to discredit the historical trajectory by considering the Empire as a predatory machine. Yet the generator/predator division is not a moral or axiological distinction. These are two conceptions, two different models. It is absurd to understand that in the generating empires there is no death, injustice, moral superiority and even depredation. […]

The Spanish transplanted their culture to America and incorporated the indigenous population, in addition to founding cities, universities and printing presses. What they did, in short, was to replicate the model of the metropolis in the conquered territories. The great mission of the Spanish crown was an evangelizing mission. […] The Inquisition did not punish the Indians for their religion as is often believed. The missionaries also studied the native languages, prepared grammars and composed texts to support their work. One of the American languages used in evangelization was Nahuatl.

On this last point of evangelization in Nahuat (language of the Mexicas/Aztecs), not only for religious documents but any document related to the juridical administration of the Cabildo was allowed. The Mexican historian Rodrigo Martínez in his talk "A Reflection on the Conquest of Mexico" raises the following points:

1. The indigenous peoples and their villages are maintained after the conquest, become Cabildos, with governors, mayors and rulers indigenous with their acts of cabildos, laws...
2. The Indians are christianized in their own languages. The Franciscan and Dominican friars will learn all these languages.
3. There is an enormous amount of documents written in Nahuat, Mayan, Otomi and other indigenous languages... acts of cabildos, testaments written in Spanish style but in indigenous language.
4. Indians are not obliged to be Spanish, but some of them prefer to work on the hacienda, live in the cities, rather than stay in the Cabildos.
5. The Viceroyalty of New Spain's mining technology and production is at the forefront worldwide.

All these documents in indigenous languages will disappear with independence because the new Mexican courts will not accept them. The courts of the New Spain did not have any problems with them In three century. The historian laments because the consequences are that after the independence all these sources disappear to know the daily life of the indigenous peoples, we only have information of the New Spain.

He points out that under the New Spain the Indians were protected, it was after independence and the Reform that the Indians were not even allowed to be Indians, they became more citizens from the capitalist point of view, that is to say, they have to be productive... the protection of their lands was broken. The dispossession of indigenous lands in Mexico began and continues to this day. They were called goods of dead hands.

 

[OrangeScorpion]

Very interesting Alejo! And I think the same may to countries like Filippines (building of schools, viceroyalties, etc.) up until when the US took over right after the Spanish-American war.

Yeah, it looks like it's just like you say. In 1962, a Spanish newspaper interviewed Philippine independence leader Emilio Aguinaldo at age 94. We have it published in sott here. He confesses to being sorry for fighting against Spain, which should have continued under the Spanish empire because the Philippines was big and rich then. He claims to feel betrayed by the United States that promised him military support for the war so that Filipinas would be free. A few months after independence, the United States remained with the Philippines through the famous Treaty of Paris signed with Spain.

"Philippine soldiers who had fought heroically in the war were not allowed to enter Manila. The Americans occupied the country, even though the Filipinos, inspired by freedom, had taken up arms in defense of their independence.

"Yes, I'm sorry. That's why, when the funerals were held in Manila in honour of King Alfonso XIII in 1941, I went to the cathedral to the surprise of the Spaniards. There I was asked why I had gone to the funerals of the King against whom I had risen in rebellion. And I told them that he is still my King, because under Spain we were always Spanish subjects or citizens, but now, under the power of the United States, we are just a market of consumers of his exports, if not pariahs. They have never made us citizens of any of their states."