This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Concerning the use of the term "Americas" There's no such Americas. America is the whole Continent. The usage of the term America to refer to the United States is wrong, imperialist and it leaves behind the other countries with a vast richer culture. This article should be called "Spanish colonization of America" and so the contents should be changed in this sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertico ( talk • contribs)
Because they were the nicest colonial power, it seems to read. Of course, the reason the Spanish were the first to pass such laws is becaue they were the first to colonize -- in 1542, there was no real European presense in the New World except the Spanish! Further, to imply that the Encomienda system was beneficial to the natives is flatly incorrect.
The last two paragraphs are the worst, though; I don't need to explain why, just take a look at them! The author doesn't describe Spanish treatment of natives, he tries to rationalize it, and to explain why the Spanish have an undeserved bad rep. Regardless of the accuracy, these items don't belong here, and they clearly reveal the bias of the author. -- Xiaphias 04:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Notions of conquest and colonization do not have to be mutually exclusive. It will be important to define what these terms mean when used in this article. Generally, conquests tend to be historical phenomena with a major millitary dimension of shorter duration than projects of colonization. From a historian's point of view, the ethnic identities of today's inhabitants of these lands are not necessarily useful as testimony to specific instances of both conquest and colonization as they occurred in history. Complex and particular historical questions cannot be evaluated by a single conclusion about the effects of a 500-year span of history. To be sure, different interpretations and historical models of conquest and/or colonization would result when considering 16th-century Yucatan, 17th-century Potosí, or 18th-century Baja California.
Moreover, it is very difficult to to postulate uniform and unified attitudes and policies of large institutions, like the church or the state. The church was divided systemically both horizontally (holy orders, administrative departments, etc.) and vertically (hierarchy of priests, bishops, archbishops, etc.). For example, holy orders competed with each other in the Americas. Clergy exhibited different attitudes toward native peoples. That is not to say that brutality and oppression were absent. However, generalizations that cover so much intellectual territory can never be completely categorical without cheapening the complexity and nuance of history.
I believe bias in some sections of this article reflects important ideological world views of recent times, and they should be removed. However, I suggest that a section be added on how notions of the Spanish conquest (or Spanish colonization) are used in modern times to support of different ideologies (such as Che Guevara's "mestizo culture" or liberation theology). 71.146.78.30 06:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget that england also desired to establish trade and slavery here too!
Gabrielzorz 17:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
removed:
- However, Spain was the first European colonial power to pass laws protecting the natives of its American colonies as early as 1542 with the Laws of the Indies citation needed. The Laws of the Indies consisted of many regulations on the encomienda system, including its prohibition of the enslavement of the Indians and provisions for the gradual abolition of the encomienda system. It prohibited the sending of indigenous people to work in the mines unless it was absolutely necessary, and required that they be taxed fairly and treated well. It ordered public officials or clergy with encomienda grants to return them immediately to the Crown, and stated that encomienda grants would not be hereditarily passed on, but would be canceled at the death of the individual encomenderos. - - The Spaniards were committed to converting their American subjects to Christianity, often by force, and were quick to purge any native cultural practices that hindered this end. However, most initial attempts at this were only partially successful, as Native American groups simply blended Catholicism with their traditional beliefs. On the other hand, the Spaniards did not impose their language to the degree they did their religion, and the Roman Catholic Church's evangelization in Quichua, Nahuatl and Guarani actually contributed to the expansion of these American languages, equipping them with writing systems. Many native artworks were considered pagan idols and destroyed by Spanish explorers. This included the many gold and silver sculptures found in the Americas, which were melted down before transport to Europe. - - In most areas, the Natives and the Spaniards interbred, forming a Mestizo class. These and the original Americans were often required to pay taxes to the Spanish government and were expected to obey Spanish law. In other areas, the Natives stayed ethnically distinct, and continued to resist intermingling for more than two centuries. Nowadays, descendants of Native Americans (mostly of mixed ancestry), constitute a major part of the population of the countries that comprised the Spanish Empire in America (with the exception of Argentina, Uruguay, Costa Rica and the countries of the Caribbean. Several Amerindian languages, like Quechua and Guaraní, have reached rank of co-official languages in some of the countries where they are spoken. - - The accounts of the behavior of Spanish conquistadors from both inside and out were part of the source material for the stereotype of Spanish cruelty that came to be known as the Black Legend spread mostly by Protestant foes, such as the Dutch and the British. As a result of this political propaganda campaign against the Spanish, little is known outside the Hispanic world about certain Spaniards, such as the priest Bartolomé de Las Casas, who defended Native Americans against the abuses of the conquistadores. In 1542, Bartolomé de las Casas published A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies (Brevísima relación de la destrucción de las Indias). His account is largely responsible for the passage of the new Spanish colonial laws known as the New Laws of 1542, which were used in an attempt to protect the rights of native inhabitants (the governor and men sent to enforce them were killed by rebellious conquistadores). These New Laws of 1542 established a very early - compared to British or French colonies - abolishment of native slavery (see the Valladolid debate).
These paragrgraphs have nothing to do with the spanish effects on heath section it was in. Gabrielzorz 17:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
A substantial amount of work appears to have been done on this article since April 2006, when "clean-up" header was posted. Does it still need this header? While there is still work, the article appears as good as most WPedia articles. Is it time to remove the "clean-up" header? NorCalHistory 18:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The whole section is remarkably poor. Bias probably could be tuned down and the quotation marks floating around could all be eliminated.
138.16.40.158 02:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. The Spanish cavalry and their forces were very tenacious, but common sense dictates that the "Conquerors" of America were the native inhabitants. There were almost a million native auxiliaries fighting the civil war. Without these forces, the Spanish simply could have not colonized America without the whole of the European continent. The real catalyst for the fall of the great Empires were the Muslim cannons they used. In coherence to that fact, their sloops or brigs (boats) were their real weapons.
1) Copper spears in closed ranks could effectively stop and dismount cavalry. To be successful, volleys of cannon fire or musket fire would be needed. To advance costs casualties---to effectively do this without the attrition factor against repetative guerilla tactics, multitudes of Indian auxiliaries would be needed for skirmishing.
2) Atlatls could penetrate chain mail at short ranges and steel armor if the spear is used as a long range weapon---gaining massive momentum from the pendulum-type swaying of the flexible spear.
3) The Mapuche learned to wrought iron and use horses and cannons effectively. Their use of horses to simply move infantry allowed the implementation of the local, over total superiority which, in turn, allowed them to cause some 90,000 native and Spanish deaths---along with countless civilians from both sides. In fact, they were one of the most effective wagers of war who ever lived... Ex: They had these guys called "Clown soldiers" who were used to simply to lure fire to cost the Spanish $$$. I forget said, "These Indians are in the habit of doing clownish things: throwing themselves to the ground, dancing, advancing---suddenly retreating." They had special soldiers who had hooks on their spears to carry away dismounted knights. Francisco Nunez (the happy captive) reported that the massive Mapuche clubs could "fell a horse".
4) Slings, which used very dense lead-type stones, could crush a steel helmet and break a sword in half from 50 feet away.
5) Bronze, stone, or copper maces were used very effectively against Caballeros (knights).
6) In the Amazon, the warriors would often lure them into the swamps and ambush their barges after pouring blood in the vicinity (crocs).
7) The Zacoteca long bows were extremely effective. They could produce tremendous velocity because they used their feet as the left arm and their arms as the right arm. I don't know if they could could penetrate steel, though.
8) Even with the natives, they lost against the Chichimecas.
9) Wave after wave of Spaniards were killed in trying to subdue the Maya. Only after they recieved help from the Xiu Maya (some 40,000) did they manage to subdue the Chichen Itza.
10) Cinnabar covered darts or "dust-bombs" could easily poison any soldier causing massive distortians in the senses before hand---eventually killing them.
11) Hornets could cause a massive delay in time and morale if they're exposed to crossing a hornet-covered bridge (not fatal).
Basically, thats it. InternetHero ( talk) 17:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
that was very good. Unsigned comments of 14:05, January 25, 2016 user:174.24.33.227
The article omits any mention of Florida or parts further north. A colony, Pensacola was founded and abandoned. St. Augustine, Florida the first continuously-settled European colony in the future United States was founded. Several landfalls, territorial claims, and attempts at colonization were made (cf. Lucas Vázquez de Ayllón). In fact, the entirety of North America was considered by Spain to be Spanish by virtue of the Treaty of Tordesillas until a intervention by King Francis I of France in 1533. Of course, at this time there was still some doubt if these lands were part of Asia or a new continent. Does an expansion of this information belong in this article, some other article, or should it be a new article? patsw ( talk) 02:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I was tempted to remove it, but would hate to impose my ignorance on others. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable will make some of the fixes mentioned in this discussion page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.138.93 ( talk) 04:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
should there be an infobox ? 69.157.68.212 ( talk) 23:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC) UNknown
Compare this article with the british colonization article or any other about the european colonization.
This could be the most biased artical on wikipedia. "While native culture was marred by Spanish proselytization..." or "and the cruelty and exploitation of native labourers and imported African slaves is undeniable, regardless of the putatively noble intentions and efforts of the Spanish crown and elements of the Catholic Church" this artical is extreamely anti-catholic. It clearly violates the neutrality policy.
== In the Composer's Defense. The composer of this "biased" article was merely stating the facts. The Roman Catholic church was, as a whole, quite brutal in its imposition of an alien faith on the indigenous peoples of Mesoamerica and in South America. One has only to review the Spanish post-conquest codices to find evidence of the barbarity of the friars, and their exportation of the Holy Inquisition to the shores of the New World in the name of their god. To state that this article violates the neutrality policy is to ignore the very testimony of Spanish friars themselves. RCP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.3.48.40 ( talk) 22:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
In the Composer's Defence: In researching an essay on this very topic, it is hard to ignore that there are two very different points of view in research. If anyone has come accross Bartolome de las Casas' "A short account of the Destruction of the Indies", it will be noticed that there is a very strong Anti-Catholic bias in this account. As very little written evidence exists, the only evidence either comes from Spanish missions, thus a rosey picture of the conquest is painted, or those Westerners who saw it as brutal, thus a brutal picture is painted. Since the Inca, Mayans and Aztecs were largely illiterate, there is very little in terms of written records to know exactly what happened.
This article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080320205224.htm
Is very interesting because it shows how the populations under the Spanish empire have survived to this day in the majority, mixed or otherwise. The Anglo model has been sadly much more different. Where are these native populations in North America and what per centage of the present population do they represent? Because they happen to be the majority in Latin America.
But then read this article and then this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_colonization_of_the_Americas
This is a shame for Wiki, a place of propaganda and big lies. Where is the intelligence of the people behind these articles. Why is Mexico full of people of Amerindian ancestry and the US and Canada so empty of the same people. Where did the real genocide take place. I am not going to change anything, but someone should. This is a great example of the nature of the people behind these lines, mainly ignorant Americans who are among the worst genocidal peoples on earth (built their nation upon the anihilation of the Native American peoples) and love ignorance or propaganda. But people are believing you less and less. Anyone can see what I mean in the two articles and in this discussion page. These Americans who had a South Africa like society until the very 1970s. What a bunch of genocidal liars. Jan.
Maunus has deleted these comments and the link to the article. Is there anything that is not true. Is it not about time that reality is decribed the way it should. Again, just read this article, and then the English colonization one, for a comparison. Who do they want to cheat. People are not that stupid anymore. Take a look at the English or North European model of colonization in America, Australia, South Africa, and then at the Iberian or Spanish one and then again read the articles that I have mentioned, and the Spanish one is far from good but in comparison a wonder from heaven. This degree of progaganda is intolerable. Northern Europeans and North Americans have been getting away with it for centuries, but people are not that stupid anymore. This article should be deleted or written again, if objetive criteria are to be taken into account. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.153.158.30 ( talk) 12:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Terrible, terrible article. What a shame for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.24.202.216 ( talk) 03:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
This amazing article needs to be very, very careful>? The Spanish never really colonized the new world, but conquered it. Although much of Central and South America speaks Spanish, these people are not from Spain, but are ancestors of Native Americans. Very few Spanish came to the new world, and most of those who did came as governors and left a generation or two later. The idea of Spanish colonists coming to America to settle needs to be tempered in this article, if not completely removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.150.79 ( talk)
This is not true at all. The Spanish conquest caused huges losses to the native population due to disease and enslavement. Because cite your sources for the statement that "very few Spanish" came to the New World. A very large percentage of Latin Americans, if not the majority are "Mestizos" mixed race people of Spanish and Native Indigenous origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.236.227 ( talk) 18:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the guy above me. But there ARE people who have Spanish ancestry living in Central, South America, even Mexico. Hint hint they are called Criollos. Look it up. Oh and by the way I have parents who hail from Ecuador and they have Spanish Ancestry.
FYI, there are some good works on demographics for Spanish America. In general, individuals of Spanish descent represented between 10-20% of the colonial population, depending on region, urban/rural, etc. By the late 16th c. onward Indigenous people tended to account for 55-65% of the population, again varying over time and space. The remaining 25-35% would have been made up of African slaves and individuals of mixed African-indigenous-European descent. Slave ownership tended to decrease in most parts of Spanish America post-1640 (Cuba post-1770s being the major exception). Spaniards did immigrate, even by the late 16th c., many Spaniards and their families resident in the Americas claimed to be "antiguos pobladores." Spain did attempt some direct colonization after conquests. Puebla de los Angeles in Mexico was originally founded and intended to be a Spanish town settled by average Spanish labradores. What is true about the top statement is that many Spaniards never intended to STAY, nonetheless, the cost of travel and the difficulties involved led many Spanish settle permanently after arrival.
All of the below works discuss to some degree the demographics and racial profile of Spanish settlement in Mexico:
Aguirre Beltrán, Gonzalo. La Población Negra De México: Estudio Etnohistórico. Colección Fuentes Para La Historia Del Agrarismo En México. México: SRA-CEHAM, 1981.
Cope, R. Douglas. The Limits of Racial Domination: Plebeian Society in Colonial Mexico City, 1660-1720. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1994.
Martin, Cheryl English. Rural Society in Colonial Morelos. 1st ed. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1985.
Palmer, Colin A. Slaves of the White God: Blacks in Mexico, 1570-1650. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976.
Restall, Matthew. Beyond Black and Red: African-Native Relations in Colonial Latin America. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2005.
Seed, Patricia. "The Social Dimensions of Race: Mexico City 1753." Hispanic American Historical Review 62.4 (1982): 569-606. Airflorida 08:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear all!
Definition of colonization at this same Wikipedia is:
1) Colonization, (or Colonisation in British English), occurs whenever any one or more species populate an area.
2) Human colonization is a narrower category than the related concept of colonialism, because whereas colonization refers of settler colonies, trading posts, and plantations, colonialism deals with this and the ruling of new territories' existing peoples.
In practice a significant list of countries in America were first conquered (subjugated), including Hispaniola, Cuba, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Peru, Colombia, Chile (partly), New Mexico. In some areas due to Spaniards being few, and indians many (Guatemala, Yucatan, Honduras) conquista was quite a lengthy process, lasting for decades. Conquista at this stage had preciously little to do with settler colonies, trading posts, and plantations. It usually involved raids for gold, slaves, and punishing the resisting indians. Some areas had conquistador expeditions first (Florida in Spanish broad meaning of the word, New Mexico, Amazonia), but no conquest or settlement for quite some time. Panama is another example, where original "settlements" of Darien and Acla were mere raiding posts, and were abandoned as soon as country was robbed of its gold.
More intensive Spanish settlement usually followed successful conquest, in case there were encomiendas with already conquered indians available in the area.
Less numerous areas were settled without initial full conquest (or conquest going hand in hand with settlement). Here I would think of Paraguay, Uruguay, maybe Argentina. Those areas were not good for conquest, and except Paraguay were settled lately.
Therefore I would suggest broadly splitting the Spanish history into 1) Exploration and conquest (usually inseparable, as after Columbus voyages exploration was usally done with the purpose of finding the lands worthy of conquest). 2) Colonial rule (not colonization) discussing here not only Spanish migration to America, but also their administration over conquered people, as well as any Afro-american colonization happening against the will of enslaved black people.
E.g. in Hispaniola settlement started in 1492, but did not prove to be efficient Isabella being abandoned in 1498. Conquest effectively started around 1495 and finished in 1503 with elimination of Xaragua and Higuey chiefdoms. Colonial rule lasted until Haiti overrun Spanish part of Hispaniola. In Peru exploration lasted till 1533, then there was conquest in 1533-1536 ending with the conquest of Collao and reduction of Inca Manco's holdings to Vilcabamba, followed by Civil Wars (between conquistadors) lasting untill Gasca's expedition. We can talk of Colonial Rule only after Gasca eliminated Pisarro's in Peru. Area of Vilcabamba had longer story of conquest due to small Inca state surviving there intill 1570s.
sincerely yours, [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.24.2.6 ( talk) 18:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there any reason Albrecht's Spanish colonization of the Americas image isn't being used in this article? The table of colors is quite large, but would make for a nice table. — Viriditas | Talk 21:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Come on, The Ogre, you know that is not true. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.55.201.56 ( talk) 18:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I think this map represents an unrealistic view of what the Spanish Empire was, as do most maps. Today the maps showing Empires all seem to have very clear, colorful boundaries. Maps are extremely important for conceptualizing what is happening in the world in specific time periods, and most of them paint an unreal portrayal of what was going on. By just showing a map of portions of the continent being shaded a different color we get no background information. This is simply an easy way to show the Extent of an Empires legal authority and not explaining any of it. To really get a good Idea of what the Spanish Empire was like there would need to be a population chart as well as a trade routes and areas of influence. In an article on Portugal they had a map detailing the various trade routes as well as the influence that Portugal had on the areas that were within its Empire. I think that a map like this would be much better for this article. Voitik2 ( talk) 01:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
how was the settelment establishe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.213.52 ( talk) 01:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it's stupid to include an anachronistic map showing Portuguese possessions as being part of "pretense" Spanish overseas territories.... Spain never really controlled Brazil, even under Phillipine rule in portugal, Portuguese colonies were still under Portuguese rule. Besides most of the land that comes in pink wasn't even settled in the 16th/17th century it was much later that it was settled and conquered to Portugal and recognised by Spain in the Treaty of Madrid in 1750. -- 85.138.18.45 13:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone tell me if the last paragraph of this is supposed to be as it currently is? It seems like parts of it were chopped away, and some sort of juvenile attempt to be funny was dropped in the last sentence. This doesn't seem to have been recent, as I couldn't find a revision lacking the vandalism, so I think it's been overlooked up till now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.154.212 ( talk) 22:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Could we please start following Wikipedia policy and sign our posts on this talk page? All it takes is putting four tildes at the end of your post. Particularly with a controversial topic like this, editors need to take responsibility for their words, and that needs something more personal than just an IP address. I've seen quite a few talk pages, and have never seen one as bad at this page for unsigned posts. Thanks. Darkstar8799 ( talk) 19:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
The cruel Spanish were supposed to have anihilated the native peoples of the Americas. In fact, according to modern science, and according to anyone with a brain who knows Spain and the Americas, the population of the Americas ruled by the Spanish are still mainly of Native American stock:
Iterestingly, Native Amerindians were indeed virtually anihilated in the North ruled by the English and the "Americans". Their bunch of lies and cheap propaganda is being increasingly cornered. Koon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.178.239 ( talk) 11:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.124.181.51 ( talk)
There has been a revolution in archaeological, genetic and historical knowledge since the pioneering work done by Sherburne F. Cook nearly half a century ago. It would be nice if that hard won knowledge was referred to in this article in a matter of fact, disinterested, encyclopaedic manner. Provocateur ( talk) 08:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC) PHAIL
Yeas, some Hispanic Americans are now beginning to discover that the majority of them actually descends from Amerindians or Native Americans, whatever you prefer. Where is the English-American equivalent. See: http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/09/30/latino.native.american/index.html?hpt=hp_bn2
From there I cut and pasted this:
But Maynard had long been taught that Taíno Indians, the indigenous people of Puerto Rico, were "gone, dead and buried" for centuries, decimated by Spaniards who arrived on the island in the 16th century.
and this:
Four years ago, Maynard heard about the work of Dr. Juan Carlos Martinez Cruzado, a geneticist from the University of Puerto Rico. In an island-wide genetic study, he found that at least 61.1% of those surveyed had mitochondrial DNA of indigenous origin.
Gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.163.240 ( talk) 14:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, even the Native Americans in the US hae survived by the millions thnaks to Hispanic culture. Actually, Spanish New Mexicans, who thought themselves of almost exclusive Spanish ancestry, have 30-40 percent Native American ancestry on the maternal side. SEE this article that also found 1-5 per cent Jewish ancestry in this group/ Interesting. Again, where is the "Anglo" equivalent?
Juanito. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.203.72 ( talk) 23:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
You are right, Maunus. It is interesting that in most Hispanic America the populations are either majority Amerindian or Mestizo. Only in the South, in Argentina or Uruguay, is the European population a majority, and interestingly all this happened when those countries got their independence from Spain, losing the protection of the Spanish empire. All Argentinians know the campaigns to destroy the Amerindian populations that took place in Argentina durinf the 19th century, with US advise, when it was independent form Spain. Juanito. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.236 ( talk) 22:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Considering that the entire enterprise of the Indies (the conqquering and colonization of the Americas) pivoted on the Papal's rights to Christianize, I am surprised that there is little to nothing about religion here. Perhaps others would be interested in expanding it in this area. Caballero/Historiador ( talk) 16:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Spanish colonization of the Americas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
The year 1832 is only mentioned in this unsourced sentence ... during the colonial period (1492–1832). Except for Puerto Rico and Cuba, we were done by 1824 in the Continent. Dunno what to do... YamaPlos talk 18:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Right now the article has low WP classification in various categories. I would like to see it rise as more and better information is added to it. I moved a big chunk of information ((36,813) in September 2019 on the structure of governance from the article Spanish Empire. I'd like to see sections on economy, society, religion, culture and other topics to be included. I plan to devote time working on this article to improve it. I hope other Wikipedians can too. Amuseclio ( talk) 23:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Amuseclio
Why the name change? We have European colonization of the Americas, Portuguese colonization of the Americas, German colonization of the Americas, Dutch colonization of the Americas, British colonization of the Americas, Danish colonization of the Americas, Couronian colonization of the Americas, French colonization of the Americas, Russian colonization of the Americas etc. etc., why do the Spanish get a different name? @ Amuseclio: Tisquesusa ( talk) 22:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
It looks awkward, the way the article is named now. But I think others have their ideas about this too Tisquesusa ( talk) 00:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Need to work on it seriously because its literally a joke. As a point of comparison, I would point to British colonization of the Americas. Two thirds of this Lead of this article discusses "genocide". Its ludicrous. -- 95.122.136.229 ( talk) 11:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Spanish colonization of the Americas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In paragraph five of the introduction, there is a typographical error. "Division" is mistyped in the sentence "...the Spanish American wars of independence resulted in the secession and subsequent divisoon of most Spanish territories in the Americas..." Melonman0 ( talk) 23:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
The two accounts that initiated discussion of Xenophobia ( Php2000 and anonymous ip two sections above) have been outed as suspected socks of Azerti83, who is known for combative editing r/t charges of xenophobia on articles about Spanish Colonization. Is it possible now to remove the POV banner from the page as we did at Genocide of indigenous peoples for the same reasons? -- Hobomok ( talk) 15:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I can only assume that the editor causing trouble above will return as a different sock account(s) in the near future to argue against well-known scholarship. I'm putting this section here to call for discussion on the talk page before anyone makes sweeping edits to any section of the lead, especially as it reads in relation to Indigenous slavery, forced conversions, etc. This way there's precedent to have discussion r/t that section before sweeping deletions are made and an edit war ensues. I'd also like to ask that we insist on Good Faith discussion here as opposed to misrepresenting what the cited authors say, or full-on attacking the authors' credentials as has been done in the sections above. I don't have the time anymore to continually defend respected scholars.-- Hobomok ( talk) 20:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Where the hell do Hispanics get the preposterous idea that Spain controlled all of the United States? Always excessively stretching the truth. They still shade in the Philippines as Spanish speaking on most world maps (Spanish is dead there). And hispanics also shade in half of Morocco as Spanish speaking. That is is simply bullshit!The only languages that are of any importance there are : Arabic and French. In the Philippines it is: Tagalog and English.
Hispanics are intent on giving an impression (albeit false) that Spanish os spoken in more places in the world where it is not! The only current and truly world languages are: English, French and Portuguese, because these three languages are spoken OFFICIALLY on at least 5 continents. Conversely, Spanish is a strong REGIONAL language, as it is 98% officially spoken in Central and South America. And then there is Spain and teeny-weeny Equatorial Guinea. But now they want the whole world to know that Spanish is a quasi-official language of the USA just because there are millions of Spanish speakers living there. The would love nothing better than for Spanish to be made a co-official language there. Not going to happen! The Germans tried that 100 years ago, but eventually melded into the English American mainstream. The young generation already prefer English over Spanish. After the Spanish only speaking generation dies, Spanish will be just another optional school subject as it is now anyway...You don't see other very numerous immigrant groups in the USA acting entitled the way the American Hispanics do. They have this obsessive need to be superior to everyone else. Their bubble is going to be burst soon. Just watch! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:1221:9B00:2C13:9445:5E49:FE71 ( talk) 21:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Las causas que explican el drástico descenso demográfico en América han sido siempre causa de polémica. Desde ámbitos generalmente ajenos a la historiografía, políticos, periodistas y organizaciones políticas actuales, así como autores han consignado que la catástrofe demográfica fue fruto de campañas de exterminio sistemático, por lo que se trataría de un genocidio. Otros historiadores, en la misma línea, han señalado que serían las condiciones brutales de la sociedad colonial, como la " Encomienda", las que serían las responsables de la catástrofe demográfica, señalando que estas condiciones de explotación, no accidentales, constituirían un genocidio. Los defensores de la hipótesis del exterminio sistemático, en general, achacan la debacle demográfica a una acción intencionada de los europeos. [1]
En general, ningún historiador niega que las condiciones de servidumbre y explotación a que fue sometida la población indígena, fue causa de muertes, pero algunos sostienen que ningún esfuerzo humano podría reducir de un 60 a un 95 de población indígena bajo un sistemático que no existió y a lo largo de un siglo. [1] Pero existe un gran consenso entre historiadores, demógrafos y ecólogos que apuntan a la introducción de enfermedades desconocidas por los indígenas, y para las que carecían de defensas, como la causa fundamental de la debacle demográfica, estimando entre un 75 y un 95% de disminución de población achacable a las enfermedades epidémicas debido a un proceso de unificación micróbica del mundo [2] originado en occidente (Europa, Asia y África) debido a las dinámicas comerciales y que afectaron acumulativa y sucesivamente a indígenas de todas las edades.
References
[[Archivo:Florentinoviruela.JPG|thumb|300px|right|" Epidemia de viruela, Códice Florentino".]] Desde la década de 1980, existe un amplio consenso entre los investigadores sobre la influencia de las epidemias introducidas por los europeos en el rápido declinar de la población nativa americana. Las cifras manejadas van desde un 30 a un 95% de la población que existía antes de la llegada de los europeos. Pocos historiadores niegan el carácter brutal de la conquista y la sociedad colonial, que contribuyeron a empeorar y agravar la situación, aunque algunos sí lo hacen, como Ricardo Levene, [1] entre otros.
La demógrafa mexicana Elsa Malvido [2] estableció que en México, entre 1518 y 1540 se produjeron tres grandes epidemias de viruela (la primera quizás también incluyó sarampión) que aniquilaron en forma inmediata a la población, causando la mortalidad del 80%. [3]
El historiador hispanista de origen británico Henry Kamen [4]analiza, en su obra Imperio, la debacle demográfica de la América Española. Así, consigna que la crueldad de los españoles fue indudable, señalando también que a los propios españoles el exterminio de los nativos no les convenía:
La crueldad que emplearon los españoles es incontrovertible. Fue despiadada, brutal y el régimen colonial jamás llegó a tenerla bajo control. Los españoles, por supuesto, no tenían interés alguno en destruir a los nativos; hacerlo, evidentemente, habría socavado su institución básica, la encomienda.
— Henry Kamen, Imperio. La Forja De España Como Potencia Mundial, ISBN 8403093160, pg. 153
Sin embargo, afirma también, citando la obra de David Noble Cook Born to Die. Disease and New World Conquest, 1492-1650, que tal crueldad no pudo ser la causa de la catástrofe demográfica que asoló la población nativa, dada la escasez de población europea:
Y sin embargo, la crueldad infligida a los habitantes del Nuevo Mundo fue responsable de sólo una pequeña parte del desastre subsiguiente. Nunca hubo suficientes españoles en América para matar al enorme número de nativos que perecieron. Sin ninguna duda, el motivo principal del catastrófico descenso en la población de las Américas fueron las enfermedades infecciosas llevadas por los europeos. Los nativos del mundo atlántico no se libraron de enfermedades ni de epidemias. Y la invasión europea acarreó nuevas y crueles formas de morir. Las bacterias que portaban los españoles sacudieron la región caribeña tan pronto como Colón desembarcó y alcanzaron el continente incluso antes que Cortés. La primera gran epidemia (de viruela) se produjo en La Española, a finales de 1518, alcanzó México en 1520 y, al parecer, se extendió por América del Norte y probablemente también por el imperio incaico. [...] El impacto directo de las enfermedades fue devastador y así lo registraron los indios en sus crónicas. Hubo otras causas de mortandad masiva, pero todas fueron indirectas o con efectos a largo plazo.
[...]La llegada del europeo, aparte de las brutalidades que pudiera cometer más tarde, parece haber tenido únicamente un pequeño papel en la epopeya de un desastre de proporciones cósmicas. [...] El número total de personas afectadas nunca podrá calcularse con fiabilidad, pero no es exagerado sugerir que, entre los pueblos indígenas del Nuevo Mundo, más de un noventa por ciento de las muertes fueron causadas por enfermedades contagiosas más que por crueldad.— Kamen, H., ibid., pg. 154-156
El ecólogo Jared Diamond, en su obra Armas, gérmenes y acero, ganadora de un premio Pulitzer y varios premios al mejor libro científico (como el Royal Society Prize for Science Books), estima el impacto de las enfermedades introducidas por los europeos en un 95% de la población:
La viruela, el sarampión, la gripe, el tifus, la peste bubónica y otras enfermedades infecciosas endémicas en Europa tuvieron un papel decisivo en las conquistas europeas, al diezmar a muchos pueblos en otros continentes. Por ejemplo, una epidemia de de viruela devastó a los aztecas tras el fracaso del primer ataque español en 1520 y mató a Cuitláhuac, el emperador azteca que sucedió brevemente a Moctezuma. A lo largo de América, las enfermedades introducidas por los europeos se extendieron de tribu a tribu mucho antes de la llegada de los propios europeos, matando a un porcentaje estimado del 95% de la población nativa americana existente a la llegada de Colón.
— Jared Diamond, Guns, germs and steel - A Short History of Everybody for the Last 13,000 Years, ISBN 978-0099302780, pg. 77-78
Concuerda con el historiador Alfred Crosby quien en su libro "Imperialismo ecológico" plantea como la ecología "europea" consistente en animales, malas hierbas y vegetales implantados, pero sobre todo las infecciones y enfermedades prosperaron en América facilitando el triunfo de los europeos:
La viruela cruzó por primera vez (...) a finales de 1518 o comienzo del 1519, y durante los cuatro siglos siguientes desempeñaría un papel tan esencial en el avance del imperialismo blanco en ultramar como la pólvora. Quizás un papel más importante, porque los indígenas hicieron que los mosquetes y después los rifles, se volvieran contra los intrusos, pero la viruela luchó muy raramente del lado de los indígenas. Normalmente los intrusos eran inmunes a ella así como a otras enfermedades infantiles del Viejo Mundo, la mayoría de las cuales eran nuevas a otro lado de los océanos
— Alfred Crosby, "Imperialismo Ecólógico: la expansión biológica de Europa, 900-1900", ISBN 8474233674
El investigador Jorge Gelman, opinando sobre el debate del genocidio y la catástrofe demográfica en la Conquista de América, sostuvo:
No estoy seguro que el término (genocidio) sea el más adecuado, aunque no hay ninguna duda de la magnitud de la mortandad entre los pueblos indígenas americanos, que siguieron a la invasión y conquista europea. Las razones son muy variadas: seguramente desde el punto de vista cuantitativo lo peor fueron las enfermedades, pero estuvieron potenciadas por la explotación, las hambrunas, la separación de las familias por los sistemas de trabajo forzado. [5]
Respecto al mismo debate, y en línea con Henry Kamen, la historiadora argentina María Sáenz Quesada niega las imputaciones de exterminio sistemático argumentando que los europeos no podían eliminar a su mano de obra:
Yo no diría que hubo asesinatos masivos, diría que hubo luchas. Los aztecas y Cortés por ejemplo lucharon. Masacres deliberadas para matar indígenas no hubo, por la simple razón de que eran la fuerza de trabajo que los españoles iban a usar. [5]
Robert McCaa introduce también las devastaciones ecológicas como factor agravante de la catástrofe demográfica:
El rol de las enfermedades no puede ser entendido sin tener en cuenta el cruel tratamiento a que se sometió a la masa de la población nativa (migración forzada, esclavitud, demandas laborales abusivas, y tributos exorbitantes) y la devastación ecológica que acompañó la colonización española. [6]
Otros investigadores, como Ward Churchill, profesor de ética de la Universidad de Colorado en Boulder y activista étnico, sostiene que si bien las enfermedades fueron la causa directa que más incidió en la catástrofe demográfica los europeos agudizaron intencionalmente su efecto:
¿Se echaron para atrás aterrados, diciéndose «un momento, hemos de poner coto a todo este proceso, o al menos ralentizarlo en la medida de lo posible, hasta que podamos afrontar una manera de impedir que se propaguen sus efectos?» Ni mucho menos. Su respuesta, en la totalidad del continente, consistió en acelerar la velocidad de propagación extendiéndola en la medida de lo humanamente posible. [7]
Uno de los inconvenientes que se han señalado [8] a la teoría de las epidemias como causa de la catástrofe demográfica, es que no se conoce ninguna pandemia que haya eliminado prácticamente la totalidad de la población de un continente, «debido a que, por norma, los virus, microbios y parásitos no acaban con la mayoría de sus víctimas».
Ni siquiera la Peste Negra, símbolo de la enfermedad virulenta, fue tan mortífera como se sostiene fueron estas epidemias. La primera incursión en Europa de la Peste Negra, entre 1347 y 1351, constituyó la clásica epidemia en territorio virgen. La mutación acababa de crear la variante pulmonar del bacilo conocido como yersinia pestis. Pero es que ni siquiera en aquella ocasión la enfermedad acabó con más de un tercio de sus víctimas. [9]
Estimación del porcentaje de indígenas muertos según la peste: [10]
Enfermedad | Fechas | Porcentaje de mortandad |
---|---|---|
¿ gripe? | 1494- 1514 | 20% |
viruela | 1519- 1528 | 35% |
sarampión | 1531- 1534 | 25% |
tifus | 1545- 1546 | 20% |
peste neumónica | 1545-1546 | 15% |
sarampión | 1557- 1563 | 20% |
viruela | 1576- 1591 | 20% |
sarampión | 1576-1591 | 12% |
tifus | 1576-1591 | 15% |
sarampión | 1595- 1597 | 8% |
sarampión | 1611- 1614 | 8% |
tifus | 1630- 1633 | 10% |
Tabla con las principales pestes ocurridas con el lugar donde pasaron: [11]
Fecha | Enfermedad | Lugar |
---|---|---|
1493- 1498 | gripe, viruela, etc. | La Española |
1496 | varias | viaje de vuelta a España |
1498 | sífilis | La Española |
1500 | varias | La Española |
1502 | varias | La Española |
1507 | varias pandemias | Caribe a Tierra Firme |
1514- 1517 | influenza | Istmo de Panamá |
1518- 1525 | pandemia de viruela | Caribe,
Yucatán,
México, América Central |
1554- 1556 | " Chavalongo" (probablemente fiebre tifoidea) | Chile [12] |
1558- 1560, 1562- 1565 | pandemia de viruela | Río de la Plata, Brasil |
Otros factores añadidos [13] fueron los desplazamientos forzados de población por las políticas de reducción (pueblos de indios, aldeas) y por desplazamientos forzados de fuerza de trabajo hacia entornos distintos, así como lo que el historiador Nicolás Sánchez llamó "desgana vital", es decir, la decepción psicológica por la conquista y la desesperanza causada por el derrumbamiento del mundo indígena, así como la destrucción de economías de susbistencia en algunas sociedades [14].
Se debe mencionar que las enfermedades también provocaron una mortalidad indirecta debido a que causaban en varios casos abortos e infertilidad a quienes las sufrían o habían sufrido. Por ejemplo, una mujer enferma de sarampión tenía altas posibilidades de parir hijos mal formados o enfermos. [15] También es muy posible que entre los varones las paperas y la viruela causaran infertilidad.
Hay que mencionar también que las pestes se propagaron muy rápido, llegaban antes que los ejércitos españoles, así por ejemplo una peste de viruela afectó al Imperio inca en 1524 varios años antes de la llegada de Francisco Pizarro y que las zonas costeras de Colombia se vieron afectadas desde el año 1500, veinte años antes del establecimiento de asentamientos permanentes europeos. [16]
References
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |urlarchivo=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Unknown parameter |fechaarchivo=
ignored (|archive-date=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |título=
ignored (|title=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |urlarchivo=
ignored (|archive-url=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Unknown parameter |fechaacceso=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |título=
ignored (|title=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
autogenerated2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite book}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)