Hispanic identity and the black legend

[Navigator]

So this period of time, late XV century and early XVI is of great importance because the repercussions are still felt across the world, that is, the rising of the British Empire and after that the influence of the United States in an even greater manner, so history had to be rewritten and twisted to make the "enemy" be someone else, in this case, the Spaniards.

That the Spaniards had a different approach to what the colonies were and how to integrate them to Spain, as opposed specially the British themselves, but also the Dutch, Belgians and even the French, makes me wonder if there was something about the Spanish efforts that made them a target for centuries long vilification, propaganda and a rough treatment overall. Was the way they intermixed with the natives and how they treated them (though of course not perfect) not what the PTB of that time had in mind for the New World?

And what about the native population of the Americas? Isolated, perhaps just as the African nations were, and as unprepared as both the Far East Asians and Africans themselves were in the face of the conquering efforts from the European colonizers.

There is some fascination in the fact that millions of people were totally unaware (apparently) and that so easily were dominated by smaller armies and countries, though it is true that the newcomers had more potent and effective weaponry, and the locals were at war between themselves and had their own agenda against their neighbors. But still, why was that? Was the world so disconnected or was there something else going on?

I tend to think that although conquest is common throughout history, during this time entire continents were affected starting in the 16th century: Africa, The Americas and Asia by the same powers, after all the Courts of Europe were all interconnected by bloodline and marriage and competing for dominance between them. Then again, how or why were the Spanish different?

 

[msante]

That the Spaniards had a different approach to what the colonies were and how to integrate them to Spain, as opposed specially the British themselves, but also the Dutch, Belgians and even the French, makes me wonder if there was something about the Spanish efforts that made them a target for centuries long vilification, propaganda and a rough treatment overall. Was the way they intermixed with the natives and how they treated them (though of course not perfect) not what the PTB of that time had in mind for the New World?

On this topic I think there are some points that deserve to be highlighted:

1- After the rumors of corruption, mistreatment and exploitation by the colonizers sent to America by the Spanish crown, Charles V stopped the conquests between the years 1550 and 1556. It was then that the debate opened in what became known as the Valladolid Controversy between Ginés de Sepúlveda and Bartolomé de las Casas. As far as we know, Spain was the first and only Empire that has stopped to consider its rights of conquest, the legality of its acts, and the rights of the conquered. Charles V even considered at that time the possibility of abandoning the conquered territories.
The fact that this happened speaks of a rather admirable degree of morality for what the time was, and I dare to theorize that this was due to a certain moral nobility inherited from the Roman order and to certain essential Christian values on which the Spaniards had built their own scale of values.

2- Spain did not establish colonies in the English, Dutch or French sense, for which the conquered territories were factories and objects of exploitation, but extended the Spanish territories by creating capitanies and viceroyalties and giving the natives citizen rights.

• Let's think about all this that happened in American territory:
  • In 1500, the first map of the world was drawn.
  • In 1517 the first geography of America is created.
  • In 1524 the first schools for Indians are opened.
  • In 1536 the first printing presses were started, 100 years before the English in 1638.
  • In 1538 the first University of America in Santo Domingo (neither Dutch nor Portuguese founded universities)
  • In 1539 and 1546 Spain created the equivalents of the Legislative (Cabildos) and Executive (Real Audiencia) powers.
  • In 1541 appears the first newspaper in America (Hoja de México). In North America was in 1704, in Germany 1615
  • In 1542 the Laws of India were promulgated in which Charles V instituted the days of rest on Saturdays and Sundays, and a working day of 8 hours a day.
  • In 1543 the first industrial school for Indians was opened
  • In 1579 the first autopsy was performed at the University of Mexico 1 year before in Europe (in Basel).

This is not the kind of activities that would be carried out by a ruthless empire that only intended to extract all the riches of the conquered territory.

3- There was then a harsh campaign against Spain devised mostly by the English. It was then that many myths were built about the cruelty of the Spanish and their primitive practices.

• The "evil" Spanish Inquisition: Spanish records detail that in 250 years, 100 people were executed by the Inquisition in America alone. In Spain itself 46 people were executed out of 125,000 who were prosecuted by the Inquisition. The Indians were never judged by the Inquisition.
• Massacre of the native peoples: History claims that Spain killed 20 million Indians (some say even 100 million), but the reality is that anthropologists estimate that by the time of the conquest, there were approximately 13 million Indians in America. Considering that the first 100 years of the conquest Spain sent 54,881 settlers, assuming this statement to be true, would imply that the settlers should have killed 1095 natives per day for 50 years (ridiculous).

I believe that the destruction of the Spanish Empire was more than the result of a simple economic dispute with the English Empire. In my modest opinion the destruction of this monumental Empire, along with the Protestant Reformation were strategies aimed at destroying values strongly rooted in Hispanic culture, which are directly linked to Christian morality, acts of conscience and nobility of spirit.

 

[seek10]

There is some fascination in the fact that millions of people were totally unaware (apparently) and that so easily were dominated by smaller armies and countries, though it is true that the newcomers had more potent and effective weaponry, and the locals were at war between themselves and had their own agenda against their neighbors. But still, why was that? Was the world so disconnected or was there something else going on?

I too wondered about this. It may be related to the early industrialization of the west( better military hardware), mass production of goods with raw materials from subject areas, mass manufacture and forced on the subject population. It is like a modern-day scenario - buying something unnecessary with nonexistent money (credit) to be debt in forever.

They centralized this planning in imperialized countries( like the Military-Industrial complex) from the booty from the plundered areas. Here plundered doesn't mean standard looting of material goods and rape, even though that has also happened. For example, In India, they entered when Moghuls were declining, they supplied guns to fighting factions, allow them to hurt each other, and take both areas for military debts. This is like modern-day bankers fund both sides to fight world wars and splitting post-war world among themselves.

In the subject areas, they created a tax collectors class(nobility) who dictated what farmers can plant and when. The farmer in one year was forced to plant cotton and they are forced to switch some die crop or something else. In the process, the farmer is ruined in a few years, so nothing to eat or pay tax, so loses the land. This is a vicious cycle in which subject areas struggled to feed and rebelling is the last thing. Of course, they can throw some crumbles like railways (created for their military communication) and boast as civilizing the natives (with their customs which only ruined the natives).

 

[jess]

Thanks Alejo for the very interesting topic, and all the comments!!!
This reminds me of a video and information on the Internet by Anthropologist Jacques de Mahieu, who explained the arrival of other cultures before the arrival of Columbus in America, interesting his position, although I must comment I don't know if this gentleman is right in his theory. (I will attach the pdf book in Spanish and the video).

Spoiler: JACQUES MAHIEU,LES TEMPLIERS EN AMÉRIQUE

Una hipótesis revolucionaria que demuele las doctrinas oficiales sobre el descubrimiento de América. Casi no quedan dudas de que los polinesios, los monjes irlandeses y los vikingos llegaron a América antes que Cristóbal Colón. También es posible que antes llegara una de las tribus perdidas de Israel. Ahora, el respetado estudioso francés Jacques de Mahieu exhuma pruebas de que los Templarios participaron en la colonización precolombina de América, y de que América, a su vez, aportó cuantiosas riquezas al tesoro legendario de la controvertida Orden. América, afirma el autor, era el «Secretum Templi». ¿De dónde venía la plata con que la Orden de los Templarios inundó Europa si en aquel entonces no se explotaba en el viejo continente ninguna mina de aquel metal precioso? ¿Para qué servía el puerto militar templario de La Rochelle, que aparentemente no conducía a ninguna parte? ¿Adonde fueron a parar los archivos templarios, trasladados a La Rochelle en vísperas de la disolución de la Orden? ¿Dónde se refugió su flota del Atlántico, desaparecida misteriosamente? ¿Cuál es el origen de los símbolos herméticos europeos y de las cruces templarías en la América precolombina? ¿Qué significa el sello, descubierto en los sótanos del Grand Sceau de France, que muestra a un amerindio típico, flanqueado por una esvástica de brazos redondeados y por una runa de Odín, dos símbolos del imperio vikingo de Tiahuanaco?

I still remember a few readings from which I would have to find the sources to cite precise data which spoke of the fact that in the case of pre-Columbian Mexico, the Mexican territory made up of different groups was in constant conflict, so by the time of Colon's arrival some of the native groups had joined Colon to defeat the Aztecs.
Apparently also in the pre-Columbian religious beliefs, the natives were waiting for the arrival of Columbus, which facilitated the union of certain groups with the Spanish to "conquer the territory".

 

[Alejo]

The more I've looked at this era, the more complex it becomes. It wasn't as simple as "Europeans arrive to conquer via violent means". Even though that's how it has been presented, that isn't to say that there wasn't some of that. For sure there was greed and a desire to grandeur in some of the individuals involved, there was violence, rape and murder, sickness and injustice as there would be with any such expanding endeavor, but it is true that the fruits of the Spanish expansion across the world seems to have had a very different focus than the ones by other european powers at the time.

The politics in Europe at the time were complex and Spain had an advantage that I think was perhaps guided by money, some luck and their catholic ethos. Much can be said about the corruption within the institution of the church and one would probably be valid in pointing it out, but from what I have seen, at least at the time, the values that created the ethos of Spain seem to have been as pure as possible for the time.

Those who arrived in the Americas, from all nations, attempted to first establish themselves and start to create alliances. I think the spanish superior navigation skills at the time aided them in getting here sooner and their luck granted them access to better weather. For most of the 14 and 1500s anything above Florida was frigid and inhospitable. This made the spanish development more noticeable in contrast to the French and English who could not take off and kept on spending money to try to make it work. So there was some of that as well, in terrible conditions of frigid cold and no food, the worst of humanity emerges me thinks.

I think some of this has been discussed earlier in this thread, and to Navigator's point, I have been thinking about this for some time and I think that one of the reasons the Spanish were able to expand so far and so rapidly for so long was the ethos that they carried themselves with. The individual relationship of every man to the creator of the universe, the respect they showed towards the local cultures that existed in the territories they came to, their efforts for incorporation such cultures and peoples, and leaders into their governing structure.

The chaos that existed in America made the Spanish attractive to a lot of groups who saw them as useful to change the structure of power, that's something that isn't discussed in many books, there were bloody tyrannies in America before the europeans stepped on it.

So I think there were a lot of factors involved in the success. The fact that Spain had catholicism as their ethos and the favor of the Pope, meant that they needed to respect such ethos and run their efforts through the catholic dogma, that is, make sure that it's a Christianity accepted effort, that is moral and that the King wasn't committing a sin by expanding the empire and thus all his subjects had to be held to the same rules, even private enterprises. Running their expansion through this moral filter informed their attitude towards the locals.

This also explains why the competing powers needed to adopt different versions of christianity, calvinism, protestantism and so on. They needed a moral structure from which to oppose Spain, as if they didn't have one, they would always need to accept Spain's expansion as the work of god, or approved by his representatives on earth. So this geopolitical necessity, so to speak, created the need to demonize spain and some of the schisms created within the catholic church.

Distancing oneself from the ethos of the catholic church, implied denying some of its core tenets, which might explain some of the materialism that drove the conquering efforts and their attitude towards locals. For the English and French new lands were meant as factories to expand the coffers of their royal homes. For Spain, the effort seems to have been to develop the places where they went and grow outwardly. There's a famous story that says how during the most prosperous times of the empire, Mexico was a far better city for the king than Madrid and people would joke that he should come live in a truly royal city and not in the one he inhabited.

So, having said the above, and I know it may be a bit disconnected, it occurs to me that perhaps, the reason to demonize Spain so completely and for so long, even after its geopolitical defeat, is because it was the largest representative power of the ethos of christianity, of love amongst men and of humility and spirituality in the west.

Sort of like Caesar was the bringer of such principles to humanity, yet was and is still demonized to this day, perhaps due to what he represented. The role of Spain back then seems to have had such an impact in a large section of the planet and these efforts must be obscured, demonized, denied and hidden away from people's consciousness and collective memories.

And it's an interesting and curious phenomenon, that a lot nations who were previously part of Spain, seem to live by the values instilled through the empire, yet call them somehow native american. it's as if, the consciousness was twisted in such a way that they were allowed to keep their values (or unable to remove them), but only if identified with pre columbian names and cultures, and this gap of knowledge is tragic I think.

Put another way, Mexicans and Colombians are very proud of being Mexican and Colombian and their long traditions, but none of those countries existed before 1820, and before that there were about 300 years of Spain. So the traditions and the pride they feel is really a mixture of Spanish and Native culture, a mix made possible by this Christian ethos, but the ideology of the "liberation" denied any possible positive effect from the centuries of Spanish influence and only allows the native factor be counted upon, which once one really thinks about it, it lacks logic...but there it is.

Does that make sense?

 

[jess]

I still remember a few readings from which I would have to find the sources to cite precise data which spoke of the fact that in the case of pre-Columbian Mexico, the Mexican territory made up of different groups was in constant conflict, so by the time of "Colon's arrival" some of the native groups had joined Colon to defeat the Aztecs.
Apparently also in the pre-Columbian religious beliefs, the natives were waiting for the arrival of Columbus, which facilitated the union of certain groups with the Spanish to "conquer the territory".

Apology, is not "Colon's arrival" is "Hernán Cortés arrival" who I was talking about in the commentary.
Hernán Cortés - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

 

[piliangie]

Hey everyone,

Recently I have been doing some digging into the history of Latinamerica and have come up with a few conclusions that I wanted to share with you all. Let me start by saying that it made me realize first and foremost the poor level of education and thus knowledge I had of it. Maybe this is why I'm sharing, so I can make sense of it, and some of this information might already be known to most of you. But it's a really fun process so I wanted to share.

The area of interest spans from the conquest (1492) to the declaration of independence from the Spanish crown in the 19th century (1810-1824).

So far based on the information I have seen I have concluded the following, this is still evolving and I'm still gathering the information so it could change, but I wanted to share this so that is up for discussion.

In Summary:

The story of the conquest was definitely the encounter of civilizations that must have been, as a rule, bloody and violent. This is undeniable. But, the amount of people killed seems to be much lower than what was reported. There are numbers that speak of 20 million people murdered. But the records show that the amount of spaniards traveling to the new world was in the thousands ( I saw figures of 54 thousand starting in 1492 and going to 1600) and the math becomes problematic. Although there have been mentions elsewhere of a biological factor which I still have to look into.

The way the spaniards behaved towards the native population differs from the way the english and french behaved with the native population. North America seems to have undergone an extermination and removal of the people while in South America there was mixing, these "mestizos" grew up to become the elite of the Viceroyalties, though the actual viceroy was always from the peninsula, he held little power over the rulings of the "criollos" that were born in the new world.

Spain, once established in the new territory, would set up a Viceroyalty, a kingdom within the larger empire that had its own obligations to the central crown, but also their privileges as Catalonia or Napoles would in the Iberian peninsula and the Mediterranean.

The goal of Spain as opposed to the one of England AFAIK, seems to have been to mix with the locals and expand the empire by making citizens out of the occupants of the land, who seemed to have adopted this quite well, the goal was to develop the location as part of the empire. To treat America as Spain rather than as a slave state.

The relationship between Latinamerica and Spain was closer, from what I can gather, to the one of Hispania with Rome, than to the one of Africa with France or the one of The USA with England for instance. America was an expansion and inclusion of new land and people into the territory of the empire rather than an extermination and appropriation of said new territory.

Most of what was produced in the Viceroyalties remained in there, some of it did leave to Europe, but not the majority.

Now, given the balance of powers in the 16th, 17th and 18th century and the struggle for power in the world with other empires (english, french, dutch) there was an effort to balkanize the new world of Spain.

As part of this effort to balkanize the new world, there was propaganda which created a legend that exaggerated the horrors of the conquest and the inquisition that has, from what I can see, created a large mental gap in the collective memory of the people of America that feel disconnected to their land. Not only this, but some people seem to think that it sent Latinamerica back 100 years in their development and their economic status. There are figures that show that Mexico city or Lima, for instance, were better off than London and Paris back in the 18th and 19th century, their population more prosper.

Most of the people in LATAM if not all, are in fact descendants of Spanish citizens (but not quite European nor native american for that matter), of an empire that was one of the greatest the world had ever seen and perhaps this is a good piece to add in the search for an identity?. Perhaps it's better to realize that there was something greater in the past rather than mere victimization?, or perhaps the best would be to see it as a whole and that there's a bit of both. But regardless it's better to know what actually went on.

Most of the information I have found is in spanish so I will be updating this post with the information as I translate the main points and hopefully create a good collection of information so that the point is made clear and discussion is encouraged.

Please feel free to add or correct me if there's anything I might have missed or gotten wrong. I hope the above was clear enough.

One more thing about this topic, is that I just read that the Spanish mate with the monarchs in Mexico in those times was Moctezuma's daughters etc...and they mix and took some of this criollos or mestizos to Spain, and they had a relevant position , not like slaves or else...so I also think that it was a bad propaganda like most of the time our friends from USA. , did it for interest.....

 

[Dovana]

So let me start here,

This is Pablo Victoria, a former senator in Colombia speaking to what he terms propaganda about Spain and how it permeated the minds of people about what life was like during the viceroyalties. Mind you he concludes that if the empire hadn’t fallen to the efforts of the English, French Dutch and so on, it would be a great nation living better than the US currently does, which to me it’s a bit much and perhaps tainted his vision. But who knows it really is impossible to tell.

Nonetheless he presents some pertinent information:

Some of the points that I found interesting are the following:

According to him, and the records he mentioned he pulled the total migration from Europe to the americas was about 54.881 from 1493-1600 making the extermination of 20 million natives a monumental task, something like over 1000 people per day for 50 years. He claims the fact that the Spaniards were able to cover so much territory in such a fashion, as far as city foundings and trade was concerned, seems to suggest that there wasn’t that many people living in America to begin with.

He also spoke about the “biological warfare” aspect that is usually brought up, he says that after studies were done, the exhumation of bodies from the conquest era were found to contain a specific bacteria (Cocolistilli) that is believed to have killed natives, but it was also found in the bodies of Spaniards, which means that the latter weren’t immune to it. To him it discounts the narrative of a biological weapon.

He mentioned data from the archives of the Vatican (which could be tampered with to be fair) to show that the Spanish catholic Inquisition wasn’t as deadly as most people think. The numbers were considerably low in comparison to the numbers of the Protestant inquisition in other countries in Europe (10.000 in ten years for Germany). Even lower were the numbers in America (100 people in 250 years).

Also showing that there were laws established that abolished things like lashing of women, that allowed repent and changed the death penalty for a canonical penalty and so on (not sure what this means).

This, he shows, came from the mission by the fraile Bartolomé de las casas, who took an expedition to the new world in the 16th century, and reported back on the misbehavior of the Spanish soldiers (something that wasn’t policy) and started a debate in which it was determined that the Indians were to be treated as people equal to those in Spain, thus the aim was more in conversion than ahnilation and opened the door for the mixing of races.

This debate halted for 5 years the entire conquest task as the crown would question itself whether it was moral or not to carry on. He also claimed that the slave imports from Africa into the territories of Spain was an imposition from a treaty with other empires and not something they wanted to do on their own.

As far as life in the viceroyalties, he shows figures that suggest that per capita, citizens in New Spain (now Mexico) for instance were way better off than citizens in England or France, he even joked that Mexico had sewage before London got theirs.

He exemplifies the different approaches showing that for instance, the effort of Spain was to spread culture around their territories, establishing schools, churches, hospitals and universities. Contrasting that with the efforts of other empires for whom their conquered territories were more like factories than colonies.

He mentions that Mexico had a printing press and a newspaper before the US and some European countries (1541 Mexico, 1704 US, 1615 Germany and 1622 England)

The first autopsy happened in Mexico in 1579 a year before in happened in Europe, and the natives were taught written language so that their texts could be recorded and maintained. He also mentioned that neither the Portuguese nor the Dutch founded universities in their therrotiries.

He also mentioned how no writers under Spanish rule were ever prosecuted for their works.

He also noted the difference of the participation of the people in the policy of their nation, he mentioned that for instance in England the people allowed to vote were about 1% (and they paid for that right) and in France less than 0.5% after the revolution. While in the Spanish provinces in the americas there was a concept of “Cabildos” which were small parliaments of small areas that allowed a larger participation of the population.

Also, labor law would allow for respite on weekends and 8hour work days and only a certain percentage of the work for Spaniard was allowed by the natives.

The directly above he shows as proof that the idea that life in the viceroyalties was an oppressive one is a myth. Who would oppress their people by making them prosper, educated and able to participate in the executive decisions of their government?

—-

I hope I did the video justice, like I mentioned above he seems to have a very romantic view of Spain that could have clouded his vision and how he presented the information, so I will take it with a grain of salt, it is nonetheless interesting and fun to learn some of these things. As I mentioned previously, I continue to realize how little did I know.

Thanks for reading and sorry for the lengthy post.

Thanks for the info Alejo

Coming from Brazil myself, I was quite surprise to learn a bit about colonial processes. For instance, the Portuguese-Amerind mestiços were detached far-enough from Europe, that when they brought dogs go America, they called it Iaguara (our regional jaguar). That is, didn’t call jaguars ‘dog’, but instead dog ‘jaguar’.

I also see the bias from the author. It does sound quite romantic. I’ve heard of Brazilian football players who get actual bananas and their dummies hanged by the supporters of their own teams. I’d be quite surprised to see many spaniards then treating the originary peoples on the same level as other spaniards.

Speaking of bias, when you say “who would opress their people with prosperity, education and participating… in the government”, I’d say you have an idea that these three can be labeled as “good”.

I don’t want to bore you with the logical steps to get to this affirmation, but as far as I can see it, most of our education today is just a means for manipulating people. For instance, I’ve certainly never been told almost anything of what you’ve said at my education-place (aka: school). I got mostly the shame talk of “the Europeans [that is, our ancestors] killed the indians[also our ancestors]”. Which has a lot of truth to it, but needs a lot of processing not be just balkanization technique.

Anyways, go take a look between the relationship between percentage and level of education, and suicide and depression rates.

Prosperity. Well… this may sound very radical, but in my experience almost everything we call prosperity is just garbage. Or comfort. I hear the word ‘prosperity’ used collectively as a dummy word for fleetingly pleasant accumulation of more useless items, or individually as a futile attempt to curb unfounded fear of not being able to survive.

On a similar note, I was very surprised with 8 hours work a day. What on Earth were these people doing for so long? I’ve done rudimentary farming myself, and doesn’t take nearly as much labor in a day for relatively comfortable living. Many societies would work very shortly, for as little as 100 days a year, and be prosperous enough to build huge temples in one single small town.

As far as I can tell, this 8h/day idea was fabricated (hah!) in the beginning of the XX cent., proposed as a merciful contrast to the slave-like 16h/day factory routine. But it isn’t and never was necessary in the first place.

So who would opress people like that? I bet the mouth of many aspirants to Pinky and the Brain are watering right now

 

[Alejo]

So who would opress people like that? I bet the mouth of many aspirants to Pinky and the Brain are watering right now

Lol, that is funny.

Very valid points, I think the idea of this thread was to pretty much start a conversation about what most of us, me included, coming from Colombia, have been taught about the colonial period of the americas under Spain, on the one hand. And what the process of the "liberation" was on the other.

For the most part, the idea was that Spain arrived in America to annihilate the native population, enslave them, and destroy their traditions, and take away all the gold.. to the peninsula, and then.. some criollos had enough of it and rebelled and fought back and gloriously won their freedom from the oppressors. End of story.

As you can see that is a very infantile way to describe the entire process of what transpired over hundreds of years and undoubtedly was a lot more complicated than: "Evil Spain"

After digging around and seeing how the entire current has evolved, I think that some people can take their defense of Spain too far, and that is a mistake, but to not question it, even slightly, can be just as large a mistake. Most people in the americas born after 1800 were probably taught a version of history that validated the revolutionaries' victory and that is questionable, but doesn't make it entirely wrong.

Finding the points of truth and lies is what the goal of discussion is, and understanding it within the historical context, is crucial

For instance, building schools, hospitals and regulating labor, things like that, could be seen as... well that was just to erase the local traditions, which yes.. there was a catholic impetus in their endeavor, but also.. the fact is that they didn't need to do that at all, they could've simply exterminated everyone and replace them with spaniards, which didn't' happen.

The above isn't to romanticize the spaniards in the americas, or deny the crimes that they most certainly committed, and the awful treatment to the natives that they most certainly conducted. But rather, to de romanticize the version of history that was taught by the victors of the revolutionary period in the region, which is at the very least, partly propagandistic.

Does that make sense?

 

[Dovana]

Lol, that is funny.

Very valid points, I think the idea of this thread was to pretty much start a conversation about what most of us, me included, coming from Colombia, have been taught about the colonial period of the americas under Spain, on the one hand. And what the process of the "liberation" was on the other.

For the most part, the idea was that Spain arrived in America to annihilate the native population, enslave them, and destroy their traditions, and take away all the gold.. to the peninsula, and then.. some criollos had enough of it and rebelled and fought back and gloriously won their freedom from the oppressors. End of story.

As you can see that is a very infantile way to describe the entire process of what transpired over hundreds of years and undoubtedly was a lot more complicated than: "Evil Spain"

After digging around and seeing how the entire current has evolved, I think that some people can take their defense of Spain too far, and that is a mistake, but to not question it, even slightly, can be just as large a mistake. Most people in the americas born after 1800 were probably taught a version of history that validated the revolutionaries' victory and that is questionable, but doesn't make it entirely wrong.

Finding the points of truth and lies is what the goal of discussion is, and understanding it within the historical context, is crucial

For instance, building schools, hospitals and regulating labor, things like that, could be seen as... well that was just to erase the local traditions, which yes.. there was a catholic impetus in their endeavor, but also.. the fact is that they didn't need to do that at all, they could've simply exterminated everyone and replace them with spaniards, which didn't' happen.

The above isn't to romanticize the spaniards in the americas, or deny the crimes that they most certainly committed, and the awful treatment to the natives that they most certainly conducted. But rather, to de romanticize the version of history that was taught by the victors of the revolutionary period in the region, which is at the very least, partly propagandistic.

Does that make sense?

It makes a lot of sense to me :)
I just can’t seem to resist some provocation.

I further realized my ignorance in the process of colonization when I read some people in northen Scotland had a viking burial… but had no viking blood. It takes a whole lot for that to happen - even if it’s a culture shared from way further back.

I also feel there’s very little talk about that in Brazil. Talking to a Tupi teacher I realized how my mind is too shallow to understand colonization. The Iaguara example is just a smaller ones. Here’s a few unanswered questions:

How come in Br there’s NOWHERE people speak a single black language? (It’s been relatively well preserved in religious cerimonies in some very specific places)

It’s said people spoke a Tupi-Portuguese mixed language up till about 150 years ago. Barely anybody spoke Portuguese. How did such a quick shift happen?

How come Brazilian Romance language (widely known as Br Pt) sounds so different from Portuguese (Eu Pt)? Why is the grammar so different? And why is American Castillian much more similar to Spanish Castillian?

I’m sure you have many misteries yourself in Colombia.

I suppose a lot of this could be answered if we had a clearer idea of colonization process. That is, something more then “White ppl bad”.

Btw, there are local legends in the Northeast of “mouro” people who were here “before the era of time”. Of course, reports of aryan, european-speaking people before Colombus abound.

Sometimes I wish those folks at the libraries would chill-out and let us read some of the juicy stuff

 

[ROEL]

Very interesting Alejo! Thanks for the summaries. You may like a historical novel titled El corazón de piedra verde, by Salvador de Madariaga. Very well written, it shows what seems to be a more balanced comparison between the native civilization (mainly the Aztecs, who were quite a bloody bunch!), and the Spaniards, including Cortés. It also talks about the parallels between the Inquisition and some of the native rituals, explaining in between the lines that in the end, it depends not on where you are, but on who you are, and what values you live by. I liked it, FWIW.

Great book that I read close to 60 years ago. Alejo would surely appreciate it. Thanks Chu for bringing it up.

 

[Bluegazer]

Continuing with the thread, a little more than a year ago the following book was published:

Madre patria - Marcelo Gullo Omodeo | PlanetadeLibros

Madre patria, de Marcelo Gullo Omodeo. Desmontando la leyenda negra desde Bartolomé de las Casas hasta el separatismo catalán.

www.planetadelibros.com

"In Madre patria, Professor Marcelo Gullo Omodeo shows that what is happening now in Spain, in its historical and geographical context, is impossible to separate from Hispanic America. The pending issues are the same: consolidating democracies and preventing territorial instability, heads and tails of the same coin. It is surprising that the author lives the deep crisis that Spain is going through with so much involvement and more sense of responsibility than many Spaniards". María Elvira Roca Barea

In this monumental book, Marcelo Gullo Omodeo demonstrates that the black legend was the most brilliant work of British political marketing. That, inconceivably, Spaniards have believed the history of Spain and Latin America written by their traditional enemies, and are ashamed of a past of which they should be proud. That Hernán Cortés was not the conqueror of Mexico, but the liberator of hundreds of indigenous peoples who were subjected to the fiercest imperialism that the history of mankind has known: that of the Aztecs. That it was not Pizarro and the handful of Spaniards who accompanied him who put an end to the totalitarian imperialism of the Incas, but the Huancas, the Chachapoyas and the Huaylas. That the indigenous masses in Colombia, Ecuador and Peru remained loyal to the Spanish Crown until the end. That the liberators Simón Bolívar and José de San Martín did not want to absolutely break the ties that united America with Spain, but sought with all their might the creation of a great Spanish-Creole constitutional empire with its capital in Madrid. Or that the responsibility for the dissolution of the Spanish Empire lay with Ferdinand VII, who preferred to be imprisoned in Europe and not free in America.

The author concludes by pointing out that nothing separates Spain from America, nor America from Spain, except lies and the falsification of history, and that the future of both depends on their being able to banish forever the myth of the black legend of the Spanish conquest of America.

 

[Alejo]

It’s said people spoke a Tupi-Portuguese mixed language up till about 150 years ago. Barely anybody spoke Portuguese. How did such a quick shift happen?

Well, it may be more complicated than simply the colonization, although I do believe it was most definitely involved. But what I mean is that, as far as language goes, it's a far more complicated and fascinating topic, maybe take a look at this thread on language

 

[ROEL]

I found a youtube short video about Charles Fletcher Lummis that I'd like to share:

 

[Navigator]

So there was a question about the Black Legend in the session of 10 December 2022:

(Alejo) In the last session the C's said that Russophobia had a hyperdimensional origin, was the phobia against the Spanish empire of the 18 and 19th Century of similar origin?

A: No

Q: (Alejo) If so, was it related to their spread of Catholicism?

A: No

Q: (L) I would say it was probably due to their rapaciousness and taking over other countries.

(Chu) Well, that's what's being put into question by another theory: that they were LESS savage than what is taught.

(L) I dunno, I've read some of the early accounts by some of those friars that were over there, and it sounded pretty heinous to me from contemporary descriptions.

The problem is that colonialism has good sides and bad sides. It's a sharing of culture and so forth and advances. You see it in the archeological record throughout history where this sort of thing happens. It's just part of the nature of things in a certain sense. The thing is, we're here now and we can see and talk about such things. It's like they were saying the other day: the governor of California who never owned slaves has to pay reparations to a lot of other people who never were slaves because of what their respective ancestors did. If you start going down that route, there is NO WAY you can ever stop! IF you go back a little further, then the shoe was on the other foot... this group, that group, the other group. Slavery, enslaving other people, taking advantage of other people has been the modus operandi for evil dominators for all of history. And we're experiencing it now because we're all becoming slaves ourselves - each and every one of us - to this rapacious elite system that's dominating our planet. So, get real.

The response kind of pushes us to go in a different direction, and the other day I stumbled upon this session from 25 July 1998:

Q: (L) I read the new book by Dr. David Jacobs, professor of History at Temple University, concerning his extensive research into the alien abduction phenomenon. [Dr. Jacobs wrote his Ph.D. thesis on the history of the UFOs.] Dr. Jacobs says that now, after all of these years of somewhat rigorous research, that he KNOWS what the aliens are here for and he is afraid. David Jacobs says that producing offspring is the primary objective behind the abduction phenomenon. Is this, in fact, the case?

A: Part, but not "the whole thing."

Q: (L) Is there another dominant reason?

A: Replacement.

Q: (L) Replacement of what?

A: You.

Q: (L) How do you mean? Creating a race to replace human beings, or abducting specific humans to replace them with a clone or whatever?

A: Mainly the former. You see, if one desires to create a new race, what better way than to mass hybridize, then mass reincarnate. Especially when the host species is so forever ignorant, controlled, and anthropocentric. What a lovely environment for total destruction and conquest and replacement... see?

Q: (L) Well, that answered my other question about the objective. Well, here in the book, Dr. Jacobs says that there are ongoing abductions through particular families. I quote: “Beyond protecting the fetus, there are other reasons for secrecy. If abductions are, as all the evidence clearly indicates, an intergenerational phenomenon in which the children of abductees are themselves abductees, then one of the aliens' goals is the generation of more abductees. Are all children of abductees incorporated into the phenomenon? The evidence suggests that the answer is yes. If an abductee has children with a non-abductee, the chances are that all their descendants will be abductees. This means that through normal population increase, divorce, remarriage and so on, the abductee population will increase quickly throughout the generations. When those children grow and marry and have children of their own, all of their children, whether they marry an abductee or non-abductee, will be abductees. To protect the intergenerational nature of the breeding program, it must be kept secret from the abductees so that they will continue to have children. If the abductees KNEW that the program was intergenerational, they might elect not to have children. This would bring a critical part of the program to a halt, which the aliens cannot allow. The final reason for secrecy is to expand the breeding program, to integrate laterally in society, the aliens must make sure that abductees mate with non-abductees and produce abductee children.” Now, this seems to suggest that there is a particular bloodline that is susceptible to...

A: We have told you before: the Nazi experience was a "trial run," and by now you see the similarities, do you not?

Q: (L) Yes, I do see...

A: Now, we have also told you that the experience of the "Native Americans" vis a vis the Europeans may be a precursor in microcosm. Also, what Earthian 3rd density does to Terran 2nd density should offer "food for thought." In other words, thou art not so special, despiteth thy perspective, eh? And we have also warned that after conversion of Earth humans to 4th density, the Orion 4th density and their allies hope to control you "there." Now put this all together and what have you? At least you should by now know that it is the soul that matters, not the body. Others have genetically, spiritually and psychically manipulated/engineered you to be bodycentric. Interesting, as despite all efforts by 4th through 6th density STO, this "veil remains unbroken."

The line of the questions and answers revolves around the idea of "replacement" of the human beings, as the purpose of the alien agenda, and the Native Americans - Europeans relationship is mentioned as a precursor of this.

Then we have this bit from the 29 August 1998 session:

Q: Here it says: The Spanish Conquistadores and missionaries destroyed nearly everything that we could possibly use to learn about the South American civilizations. A sixteenth century eye-witness says that there was an emerald idol that was completely fantastic. Father Benito took this idol and had it ground up, stirred the powder in water, poured it on the ground and stomped on it. Cortez was given two circular calendars, one of gold and the other silver, as big as wagon wheels, with all kinds of hieroglyphs on them, which he immediately had melted down and cast into ingots. 'All over Central America, vast repositories of knowledge, accumulated since ancient times, were painstakingly gathered, heaped up, and burned by the zealous Catholic missionaries. In July, 1562, for example, in the main square of Monte, in the Yucatan, Father Diego de Landa burned thousands of Maya manuscripts, paintings and hieroglyphs inscribed on rolled up deerskins. He said: 'We found great numbers of books written in the characters of the Indians, but since they contained nothing but superstitions of the Devil, we burned them all, which the natives took most grievously, and gave them great pain.' Hancock says: 'Not only the natives should have felt this pain, but anyone and everyone then and now who would like to know the truth about the past. Diego de Landa participated in Spain's Satanic mission to wipe clear the memory banks of Central America. In the marketplace at Texcoco, they built a vast bonfire of astronomical documents, paintings, manuscripts, hieroglyphic texts, which the Conquistadores had forcibly extracted from the Aztecs during the previous eleven years. As this irreplaceable storehouse of knowledge and history went up in flames, a chance to shake off some of the collective amnesia that clouds our understanding was lost to mankind forever.' So, having read this sickening description about 'Spain's Satanic Mission' to destroy the past, I would like to have a comment on what was motivating the Catholic Church, the Catholic Missionaries, and Spain itself, since Spain has been designated as one of the areas where 'artifacts' may be still found. Could you comment?

A: You should not need commentary, as we have told you much about the desires of 4th density STS to obscure truth by manipulating 3rd density STS.

And here we have another motive: the destruction of knowledge.

The fact of the matter is that with the actions of both the Spaniards and the English, the "Native American" race was reduced significantly. And it could be argued that a huge number of those identifying as such nowadays have European genes in them.

What is more interesting, while it seems that the C's are saying that the intent behind mixing Spanish and the Indigenous population was a replacing precursor (replacing the Indigenous population with a new "race" or "variant" I guess), I wonder why was this appealing in the first place?

Was it just because the Indigenous people were an easy target for this "trial run"? Or because the PTB wanted something specific out of this mixing? Or even, because they wanted the Indigenous people out of the picture?

Either way, I recall somewhere in the forum Laura mentioning that this whole Conquest ordeal could very well be also karma for Atlantis, as the C's have mentioned that one of the three races there was the Native Americans. So this is another variable also included in the "mix" of reasons, OSIT.