All this is true, but like everything else there are nuances.
When you read for example that the Aztec empire, captured and cannibalized their enemies / tribes in the area, when Cortes arrived, this ended because it was those other tribes who asked Cortes for help.
En 1521, un reducido grupo de españoles liderados por Hernán Cortés, con el apoyo de una amplia coalición de pueblos indígenas, conquistó a sangre y fuego Tenochtitlán, la gran capital de los aztecas.
historia.nationalgeographic.com.es
In 1519 - the year I Caña according to the Aztec calendar - Cortes and his people arrived at the Mexican coast of Tenochtitlan, where they quickly overcame the hostile indigenous people of the area. As part of the spoils of war, they received twenty young Indian girls, among whom was the one who would be known as Malinche, or Doña Marina, a maiden who mastered several indigenous languages and soon learned Spanish, which was crucial for Cortés in his invasion plans. The conquistador fathered with her his son Martín, considered the first mestizo in continental America. On their way to the capital of the Aztec Empire, the Spaniards gained the support of the native Totonacs of the city of Cempoala, who thus freed themselves from Aztec oppression.
Con sus luces y sus sombras, el extremeño fue una figura inesperada y de gran inteligencia política, que aprovechó en beneficio español el odio creciente entre las tribus locales hacia la dominación azteca
www.abc.es
The Aztec Empire was the most powerful political formation on the continent, estimated to be populated by 15 million souls and controlled from the city-state of Tenochtitlan, which flourished in the 14th century. Using the military superiority of their warriors, the Aztecs and their allies established a system of domination through the payment of tribute over numerous towns, especially in central Mexico, the region of Guerrero and the Gulf Coast of Mexico, as well as some areas of Oaxaca.
Mass human sacrifice was a key mechanism in the Aztec system. Each year between 20,000 and 30,000 people, captured from neighboring tribes, were immolated in these ceremonies. Hundreds of tribes celebrated with jubilation the disappearance of that killing machine, defined by María Elvira Roca Barea, as “a bloody totalitarianism based on human sacrifice”. As the Australian historian Inga Clendinnen points out, lamenting the fall of the Aztec Empire is like mourning the defeat of the Nazis in World War II.
It would not be strange (and here is where the mixture of ignorance and horror comes into play) that after the defeat of the Aztec Empire, you would also want to eliminate any vestige of that system. On the other hand, we can suppose that it is part of the karma of those peoples and the Aztecs who apparently had not learned their lesson...until Cortes arrived.
On the other hand, we have no idea of the exact plans that the 4D STS have in mind, so we do not know if in their long term planning they preferred to let the Aztecs pay the price by taking advantage of the karmic circumstances. We can even assume that among 4D STS there are factions fighting internally and that this will determine what plan or what future events will take place.
It would not be strange (and here is where the mixture of ignorance and horror comes into play) that after the defeat of the Aztec Empire, you would also want to eliminate any vestige of that system. On the other hand, we can suppose that it is part of the karma of those peoples and the Aztecs who apparently had not learned their lesson...until Cortes arrived.
As far as this Karma goes, I've thought about it.. it is interesting to ponder about it from several angles, on the one hand you probably have some of the vestiges of the Atlanteans, who were pretty much stuck in a position of having no world influence and destined to exterminate one another until someone stronger came along and got rid of them because they were weaker, because they were exterminating one another.
On the other, the spaniards didn't fare too well either, they did get to mix in with the people of the region rather successfully, conserved a lot of the knowledge and stories of the former inhabitants of the americas, and "civilized" the americas in very decent ways, from our point of view.. BUT.. ended up being hated and the notion of ever being part of the Spanish empire are gone, most people growing up have no idea and do not consider it, they all consider Spanish presence in their country as a negative situation, and Spain itself has suffered from further divisions in the peninsula in recent years. What I am saying is that there might be more Karma involved from both parties, it may not be a straight forward relation.
The movement that has surfaced recently to try to reconnect Spain and America, I think it has a lot of merit, it sheds a lot of light into an obscure era, obscured by political movements that had the intention of making Spain look like an evil empire, and succeeded because of other global happenings and influences, so great! But that movement also tends to fall in a very small niche that seems stuck trying to recreate a greatness that, well it's gone.
I've always had the feeling that there's a bit more to this entire episode in history, and I still think that to be the case, and it deserves research.
Now, if anyone's interested in some history, there's this channel that did a wonderful take on the history of the Spanish empire, the viceroyalties and independences. The channel tends to be a bit more.. official history, but he does a decent job, and I think remains decently objective, so I'd recommend it. Quite a bit went on and as per usual, things are not that straight forward as it is presented to students.
I've always had the feeling that there's a bit more to this entire episode in history, and I still think that to be the case, and it deserves research.
Yes. And from another angle, the way I see it, FWIW, is that the problem is in how history is told in very generalized terms. Good guys vs. bad guys, all of one "people" bad, the other victims, etc. But if we look at the PRESENT, what do we see?
- A small percentage of psychos causing a lot of destruction and suffering
- Another portion of the population buying into the propaganda and following whatever is trendy or that they are told to do, some even believing they are doing good.
- Another portion of the population who simply doesn't care either way
- Another portion who sees through the lies and tries to do something (either by being "militants", or by sharing knowledge, etc.)
Look at any modern conflict, and you still see that even when MOST of a group is causing suffering (e.g Israelis and Jews around the world being against the genocide in Palestine, some even trying to actively help).
So, why would it have been any different during the colonies? It was likely a mixture of people on both sides, from the cannibal Aztecs and the psycho Spaniards, to sincere missionaries who wanted to help, and sincere natives who needed help and wanted a different life. I don't think it will ever be super clear cut. The most we can get to, maybe, is a sort of overall balance, where you can see that one group was "mostly bad", the other "mostly good", etc. But even that is not so clear cut. Some good people did something bad while thinking they were doing the right thing (spreading the word of God, or whatever), and viceversa: maybe some thought they were dominating other groups, while in fact they ended up liberating them from psycho tribes, or whatever. It's complicated, especially when you are talking about such a vast territory being conquered.
Maybe this is too obvious or simplistic, I don't know.
So, why would it have been any different during the colonies? It was likely a mixture of people on both sides, from the cannibal Aztecs and the psycho Spaniards, to sincere missionaries who wanted to help, and sincere natives who needed help and wanted a different life. I don't think it will ever be super clear cut. The most we can get to, maybe, is a sort of overall balance, where you can see that one group was "mostly bad", the other "mostly good", etc. But even that is not so clear cut. Some good people did something bad while thinking they were doing the right thing (spreading the word of God, or whatever), and viceversa: maybe some thought they were dominating other groups, while in fact they ended up liberating them from psycho tribes, or whatever. It's complicated, especially when you are talking about such a vast territory being conquered.
Great stuff and not obvious or simplistic at all and it tends to get overlooked because it’s problematic in terms of having tidy bits of easily digestible and rememberable “facts”. The winners tell the history and naturally tend to whitewash and justify their own actions. That’s just natural. To lie is the way. And to believe the lies is also the way. It just makes life easier.
And just who are the primary sources for the stories? The church? Was there a reporter from the Madrid Times there? And what about all the records and writings destroyed by the church? (Which probably supported a way different historical record). It’s so hard to nail down the truth but everybody acts like they have it because the mind likes certainty and closure.
“Give me a simple story that I can believe so I can go back to sleep and not have to think about this any more and get back to wishfully thinking about my preferred illusions.” The Predators Mind.
So, why would it have been any different during the colonies? It was likely a mixture of people on both sides, from the cannibal Aztecs and the psycho Spaniards, to sincere missionaries who wanted to help, and sincere natives who needed help and wanted a different life. I don't think it will ever be super clear cut. The most we can get to, maybe, is a sort of overall balance, where you can see that one group was "mostly bad", the other "mostly good", etc. But even that is not so clear cut. Some good people did something bad while thinking they were doing the right thing (spreading the word of God, or whatever), and viceversa: maybe some thought they were dominating other groups, while in fact they ended up liberating them from psycho tribes, or whatever. It's complicated, especially when you are talking about such a vast territory being conquered.
And I think that using a reductionist approach, as some in the recent movement to revise the history of Spain have, truly does the truth of the matter a disservice. There is something there that I think would be very beneficial for most hispanics to understand, but not with the goal of simply finding a different good guy to rally behind. Not that there aren't heroic figures that probably deserve attention and may even provide role models, but this is true on both sides of that equation, the natives and the spaniards, and both also had despicable parts of themselves.
So, if anything, the study of this episode should serve as a reminder of just what you said, history isn't a simplistic and infantile narrative of good vs evil, there is definitely good and evil, but it takes work and objectivity to recognize, and even so.. our current paradigm might affect how we perceive such endeavors as the conquest.
It's been a little over a week and I have been meaning to post here, but I finished making my way through España contra su leyenda negra by Javer Rubio.
It was a really good book, tons of information and data on Spain itself, the author gets really detailed into several topics, like when did the idea of Spain became solid as a nation, he talks about the Reconquista of the peninsula, the Visigoth period, and quite a bit that transpired afterwards until today. He presents a lot of information from oficial sources as much as he can.
Even though he does let some ideological inclination take over form time to time, and from time to time he allows himself to be overtly loving of Spain as a nation, I think he does a decent job. My conclusion from reading his work and having thought about it for a few years is that Spain, like most every other nation in the planet, has a complex history. The author makes the point and warns people against being too self defeating and adopting notions that may have been false altogether, but also against adopting none of them and jumping on the other extreme. He invites people to take a balanced look at Spain and I believe that is the best approach and simplest conclusion to the entire topic.
He goes on quite a bit about the inquisition, demystifying it quite a bit, the relationship between the peninsula and the americas, which has been expanded here quite a bit, the relationship between Spain and its neighbors, and the current situation of the country as a whole and what it faces.
Overall a good read, recommended if you read Spanish and have interest in the topic.
Now, there was something that kept bugging me while getting through this work. He, and a lot of historians and academics, present the relationship between America and Spain in more or less the following terms: You cannot complain saying that Spain came to invade Mexico, Colombia, etc. And that those countries then expelled the invader. What happened was that Spain lead the colonization of the continent that was populated by various nations that weren't peaceful at all, the conquest was done by native Americans, the independence was done by spaniards.
Which is true, Mexico or Colombia or any other nation, did not exist until after the independence, and while it is understandable to create a sense of pride as the victors and to validate the choices made, it's a fallacy to claim that Spain invaded Mexico, or to deny the hundreds of years that the region that now is Mexico was once New Spain and it had a very good level of prosperity, a lot of the customs that make Mexico feel proud today are of Spanish origin, not Aztec. All of central and South America was Spain, that empire broke off into smaller nations and to seek to gather a sense of belonging by denying the Spanish influence and only focusing on the native one is, cockeyed.
However, it struck me as if the author criticized that, adequately in my opinion, while at the same time doing the exact same thing with the Reconquista period. I kept thinking, well... Spain was not Spain before Al-andalus, it wasn't really Hispania Romana either, not quite.. it was a Visigoth Kingdom, and in fact, it spent a lot more time being a caliphate than America spent being Spain, yet in Spain they do grab quite a bit of pride from the reconquista effort, and after the reconquista, which were 8 centuries according to historians, what was reconstituted wasn't that same kingdom, was something else altogether, yet there it is.
I don't know if I want to call it hypocrisy per se, but maybe a blindspot?. Or am I missing something perhaps? that's why I wanted to post it here.
Spain was not Spain before Al-andalus, it wasn't really Hispania Romana either, not quite.. it was a Visigoth Kingdom, and in fact, it spent a lot more time being a caliphate than America spent being Spain, yet in Spain they do grab quite a bit of pride from the reconquista effort, and after the reconquista, which were 8 centuries according to historians, what was reconstituted wasn't that same kingdom, was something else altogether, yet there it is.
“The Battle of Covadonga never existed. In all the Christian chronicles before the year 883, the Battle of Covadonga never appears, which is symptomatic. And in the Muslim chronicles it does not appear in any,” says José Luis Corral, professor of History at the University of Zaragoza and author of historical novels such as “El Cid.”
“This account of the battle is literally copied from a passage in the Bible. In these first medieval accounts, King Pelayo appears defeating the Chaldeans, a mythical people of present-day Iraq, instead of the Muslims. This is because it is an account copied from the Bible, specifically from the Book of Exodus of Moses' journey to the Red Sea and from the First Book of Judges,” concludes the professor.
“Pelayo is a leader who existed as a character who defended the territory of the Christian north from the Muslims,” he clarifies. “There are many theories: that he was a grandson of the Visigoth royal family, that he was a descendant of a Duke of Cantabria, others place him as a leader of the local aristocracy. It is not very clear. It is true that he is a historical figure who resisted the Islamic invasion probably because he did not want to pay taxes or submit and that he wanted to vindicate himself through the Christian religion,” according to Corral.
Right, reconquista implies that something was stolen, and then reclaimed.. but maybe it wasn't quite like that.
It isn't to say that Spain wasn't a great empire on its own afterwards for centuries, but maybe it wasn't a resistance as much as, simple the desire for expansion with the rules of the time.
It isn't to defend Al-Andalus either, they themselves violently moved in and expanded, so.. you live by the sword you die by the sword type thing, in both cases.. or the three of them. the Iberian peninsula, Al-andalus, and Spanish America.
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.
To love your colonialist oppressors, enough to call it brainwashing. Today I hear the strong remnant of that result in the mouth of these leftists showing them still as heroes of the fatherland. If you watch any video of Maduro, you will get an idea of how deep he is still.
It's too romanticized, childish and even messianic in case you haven't heard a song called "Viva Venezuela".
When Bolívar was born
Venezuela gave a scream
Saying that he had been born A second Jesus Christ
Maybe that's why Guaido and company started using Bolivar again more than anything and not to "steal" the patriotic symbols. They will know something because if we have learned "to listen to psychopaths in reverse", the good ones are always demonized and the demons sanctified!.
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.
I don't know, I read all this and the only thing that comes to my mind is the impediment on the part of England because the United States or Spain was not the first to control America. "Whoever gets there first, gets it." Someone has to get to the top and the rest is part of the complementary adaptation to a system established by the winner and author of the story in his favor, understand, culture, religion, education, etc.
Simon Bolívar and San Martín, I read a long time ago that they were English spies, they really weren't fighting for any "independence" of anything, but for the fragmentation of the verreinates of Spain. The closest thing to the frustrated result is in what is still being discussed today about the Malvinas and Guyana, fragments of that attempted conquest between 3 great powers, so to speak.
We find England and France calling the attention of all nations, and giving them eloquent lessons, of all kinds in matters of government. The Revolution of these two great Peoples, like a radiant meteor, has flooded the world with such a profusion of political lights that all thinking beings have already learned what the rights of man are, and what their duties are.
And in the message to the inhabitants of New Granada of June 30, 1819, when the British troops were already carrying out their predatory task in an exemplary way, he pointed out:
From the most remote climes, a British legion has left the homeland of glory to acquire the renown of saviors of America. In your bosom, people of Granada, you already have this army of friends and benefactors, and the God who always protects afflicted humanity, will grant victory to his redemptive weapons.
Redemptive weapons that massacred the populations; redemptive weapons that subdued the entire Hispanidad; redemptive weapons that, literally, emptied the coffers of the viceroyalties and transported the treasures for the greater glory of England; redemptive weapons that exterminated indigenous peoples; redemptive weapons under whose auspices the market of all Hispanidad sank for the exclusive benefit of the British market; redemptive weapons that, needing military bases, did not hesitate to graciously stay with the Malvinas Islands or with Guyana.
In the end, everything ended up in a kind of patriotic narcissism where Latin Indians call each other Indians contemptuously. The Indians of the north of the south are less Indians than those of the south of the south. Karma in this small space of hatred between Indians makes sense to me.
As Jaime Garzón said:
"The rich think they're English, the middle class thinks they're Greek, intellectuals think they're French and the poor think they're Mexican," Colombian comedian Jaime Garzón (murdered in 1999 for "awkward") joked about his compatriots.
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?
"A microcosm is a small society, place or activity that has all the typical characteristics of a much larger one and that's why it looks like a smaller version of it."
Like an early experiment on repopulation like many others an the Nazi, but a very beta version (laughter). Well, "colonial era", is self-explanatory.
___
Thanks for these topics Alejo, it's certainly complicated with so much fragmented history. It is as many do who only see life in a compressed form as dinosaurs, Jesus Christ, Christopher Columbus/Cristóbal Colón and evolution/current affairs.
A long time ago I was attracted by the history of South America and I didn't have the patience for this, it seemed like a dead end. It was like watching the "Zorro" series. Don Diego representing the heroes of independence and Captain Monasterio as early psychopathy germinating in the viceroyalty of Spain blocking all information to the King so as not to be discovered. (laughter)
A long time ago I was attracted by the history of South America and I didn't have the patience for this, it seemed like a dead end. It was like watching the "Zorro" series. Don Diego representing the heroes of independence and Captain Monasterio as early psychopathy germinating in the viceroyalty of Spain blocking all information to the King so as not to be discovered. (laughter)
I never had any interest in it to be completely fair, and then a few years ago I read Adrian Raine's Anatomy of Violence, and he was explaining how certain behaviors were rewarded in a tribe depending on the resources in the area, and he used an example of a tribe in Brazil where it was rewarded to cheat and steal, and that kind of launched a conversation with some dear friends about South America, then I had the luck of visiting Mexico and felt as I had in Colombia.. it was too familiar and that kind of set the idea of commonality in motion, and here's where I find myself today.
There's perhaps a lot of really interesting history that predates the Spanish in America, and there's some of that which permeates genetic and cultural heritage of the region, however I would dare to say that Spain has a larger influence on the values shared by most of the population. And the Spanish history of America is rather interesting on its own, complex and extensive and impressive even.
It isn't to defend Al-Andalus either, they themselves violently moved in and expanded, so.. you live by the sword you die by the sword type thing, in both cases.. or the three of them. the Iberian peninsula, Al-andalus, and Spanish America.
Are we sure about this? From what I've read(but I confess it's little, and I haven0t done my full homework there!), it sounds more and more to me like the Muslims just moved into territories that had been decimated by catastrophes, the plague, etc. Is there any actual evidence for violence, and "conquest" per se, etc?
There's perhaps a lot of really interesting history that predates the Spanish in America, and there's some of that which permeates genetic and cultural heritage of the region, however I would dare to say that Spain has a larger influence on the values shared by most of the population. And the Spanish history of America is rather interesting on its own, complex and extensive and impressive even.
I don't doubt it, obviously this part of the story should not remain only in "we arrived, we killed, we mixed and they took us out but we stole them". A convenient story.
It's very interesting what you say about shared values. Given that, certainly looking for the "common" seems to be a good principle or the best way to be able to see where the abrupt cutoff of history and those shared values comes from, instead of just using anti-values as the main reason.
Today we see the fruits of that Balkanization still being effective and as Europe seems to function ironically as viceroyalties of the USA or so a scheme has been made in my mind now because that "libertarian illusion" that some leaders in South America still proclaim today, always embracing the false procures and the resistance of a part of the population for the desire to be colonized by the USA.UU on the part of some through dollarization, opening the doors to big commercial brands, etc. That thought, always wishing to be part of "a better race" but from the North, has been curious to me because it is no longer only to see it from the mere materialistic perspective that has always been attractive. It is a transcendental victim state of mind that never ends. It makes a lot of sense to see that connection from the past to the present day.
I have never been able to forget how much Evo Morales always criticized Spain, until the day when the coup d'état was carried out and Spain began to be described as the "Motherland".
"Welcome, Spain. The grandparents used to say: Spain is the motherland. Your mediation is important."
Those little reflections of the life. Then they do know, only those who do not know anything are made for convenience and when not, too.
At the same time, it is interesting that in Spain there are few serious researchers willing to rescue that part of history, even with its blind spots, but there are those who make the effort. In fact, there are those who are attacked for it, which already demonstrates the psychopathic infection of maintaining racial superiority and the system that must be maintained in that sense.
There is a very great polarization, Spain the genocidal one or the savior of the savages.
El historiador español Esteban Mira Caballos habla con BBC Mundo sobre su libro "El Descubrimiento de Europa", que cuenta cómo fue la vida de los primeros indígenas que llegaron a España después de 1492.
www.bbc.com
"That indigenous blood runs through Spanish blood is something that generates aberration among conservatives”.
People think that Spain conquered, colonized and administered America, but 95% of the conquerors were indigenous.
Who is going to believe that Francisco Pizarro, with 180 men, conquers Tahuantinsuyo with 2,000 km2? Or that Hernán Cortes, with 508 troops, conquers the Mexican federation?
The conquest was agreed between the Indians and the Spaniards. When it's over, the Indians themselves stay on as sergeants and bailiffs majors and other positions. They remain fighting rebellions of other natives. Spain maintains the entire indigenous structure of chiefdoms, Curacazos and chiefdoms.
Are we sure about this? From what I've read(but I confess it's little, and I haven0t done my full homework there!), it sounds more and more to me like the Muslims just moved into territories that had been decimated by catastrophes, the plague, etc. Is there any actual evidence for violence, and "conquest" per se, etc?
I'm not entirely sure myself either, from the official history there was a civil war in the visigothic kingdom that the Arab-Moorish warriors intervened in, and from their victory in 711, they carried on on a conquest north in the peninsula, and established a rule that lasted from 720-1492.
So, it may be a mixture of events, I do think that for them to conquest the entire peninsula in seven years, if there was a solid presence, would be really difficult, so the ease probably means that there wasn't much there to begin with. I don't think it was entirely empty either and a lot of what has come down to us today, may be told by the victors romanticizing the reconquista.
I'll keep digging and see what I can find, there's also the C's saying that there were about 500 years added to the timeline, and I haven't really kept up with that thread, but there's the possibility that a lot of that era was obscured and a lot was added to it too.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
historia.nationalgeographic.com.es
