The Conquest of the New World by Spain and some history

Ive noticed alot of critizism among many Americans about the Spanish Empire. I will start with Hernando Cortez. The Americans have stamped him as being a heart less criminal and that he only conquered for money. This is simple untrue Cortez in my opinion was a great general (as a Spaniard ill emdiately admit that my opinion is obviously a biased one) any how what I find strange is how people always talk about how "cruel" the Spaniards were. They never mention that alot of the cruelities done where done by Cortezes indian allies that helped with much of the conquering. Why do Americans rarely acknowledge this. And alot of historians talk about how the Europeans brought diseases to the natives they say it in a way as to suggest the Europeans brought it on purpose. They had no ideas their diseases were so deadly it was 15-14 th century Europeans didn't have microscopes back then. What I also find funny as that they never mention the fact that Motezuma died (killed most likely by angered Aztecs throwing rocks) and that Cortez cried because of this. The man that was with the expedition wrote an entire journal about the Spanish conquest of Mexico the historians have no excuses for these made up lies about the conquest of America. Further more the Spaniards weren't brutal invaders as a matter of fact they often mention how the cities were beautifull. They also had great respect for the Aztec warrior. During the conquest the Spaniards were better equiped but they had to battle the Aztecs face to face. I believe this was one of the greatest battles and biggest battles of all times (we are talking legions heres). As we all know the Spaniards were succesfull in conquering the Aztecs and thus made the future country Mexico alot of Mexicans would disagree with this but Mexicans must understand that the founding of their modern borders,language,religion,half their culture,and basically their country was made from the conquest of the Aztecs by Spain.A savage untamed but beautifull empire then turned into a fairly modern united empire then country under one language Spanish instead of the other 100 native languages. Spaniards founded Mexico as well as many other American countries. Many Americans believe Spain destroyed Mexico in 1520 when in reality Spain created Mexico. Americans ignore all of the good aspects of the Spanish Empire they don't mention the musical,cultural,farm technics,horses and unification of central America that the Spaniards brought etc etc. Although the Conquerors were cruel the Americans have exagarated this greatly. And they have emphasized the bad and cruel aspect of the Spanish Empire instead of the Golden Age of it. It was when two worlds meet face to face it is a great moment and when two worlds meet conflict is sure to happen it is sadening to have it defaced like this by American and British historian etc. Hopefully the truth about the Conquest will be told.The Aztecs were a great civilization but I believe the culture after that the Mexican culture and people is even greater. The Spaniards stopped the sacrifice and destroyed a some what opresive empire from the region. Most Indians back then actually supported Cortez and his troops this illustrated by the fact that several thousand of em helped him destroy the Aztec empire. America a pronominantly white country that has almost completely destroyed their native population. Continues to tell lies about the Spaniards and hold a blind eye to the Mexicans which live down south and are still mostly Indian and some Spanish. While they talk about how badly they treated the Native Americans they don't even realize that right under their noses in Mexico the natives still survive and they were not destroyed by Spain. Spanish Empire was cruell but not as cruell as the black legend says. Spain did not destroy the native population like the Americans did that might be why Americans try to emphasize Spanish cruelties against the natives to show that their were other and they were "crueler". Anothere aspect about this time is the British 15th century state sponsored terriosm was at its hieght. Drake a terriost pirate was Knighted by the queen of England he killed many of my ancestors yet he is held with great regard. Further more why doesn't America talk about how cruely and disruptively the Spaniards were treated by the Pirates. What about the Spaniards killed by them? And now that America is trying to destroy terriosm like Spain would have like to have done back then hence the Armada. The US doesn't even realize the simalarities between these two twins seperated by a few hundred years. When the Spanish American War ended the Spanish Empire was lost the American Empire began the torch was passed. The US is know the one hated by the world like Spain was and to a very small extent still is. Now Blair and the UK the people that so denounce terriosm don't even realize that their country was the largest supporter of it. So in conclusion the Coqnuerors were Conquerors not murderers and rapist of women the Aztecs were great respected warriors but savages (to some extent) and Spain unified much of America under one langauge the Spanish Empire was great and sould not be drenched in lies and blood. any ways saludos this written by half Spaniard half American person Oh yea one more thing my Spanish Teacher said was asked by one for her students wether she liked the fact that the Europeans came. She said no ill the brought was disease and death If they wouldn't of have come she would have been out of a job.

Please use paragraphs Quintos!!!

Fernando

Well, that is quite a detailed explanation, all of which I find to have truth, however:

"A savage untamed but beautifull empire then turned into a fairly modern united empire then country under one language Spanish instead of the other 100 native languages. Spaniards founded Mexico as well as many other American countries. Many Americans believe Spain destroyed Mexico in 1520 when in reality Spain created Mexico."

This is a highly ethnocentric statement. The Aztec never asked to be 'modernized' and surely did not consider themselves 'savage'. If anything, they thought so about the INVADING, OCCUPYING Spanish forces.

You can rationalize history as you like, but conquest is rarely welcomed. Those other native tribes sided with the Spanish simply to push the Aztecs out of power and themselves in power - they all wanted to stop being the oppressed and become the oppresor; They did not envision a world where Spaniards ruled them (kind of like all the European nation-states that were culturally and linguistically similar - latin based languages - continually attempting to dominate one another).

As far as asking yourself why modern Americans, Britains, and Spaniard do not muse about these topics, it's simple. Most people do not know nor care about history like you or me. The have NO concept of what went on apart from what they heard in early school by biased text books.

And as far as you're teacher not having a job if the Spanish hadn't come - she could have been a teacher of one of the 100 varieties of languages that Spanish civilization helped kill off. :p

hey everybody

rocinante

oh rocinante... rocinante

if you go to mexico(perhaps chiapas) or read about mexico you will discover that the indian languages were not totally destroyed unlike in your california area.there is hundreds of indian dialects spoken in all latin american countries not just in mexico.
sorry to alarm you greatly. :p

Interesting and polemical discusion about the Cortés and the Black Legend (Leyenda Negra).

My wife comes from the Mexican state of Tlaxcala. The Tlaxcaltecans initially rose up against the Spanish, but later became the allies you were talking about. My wife tells me that many of her countrymen/women consider people from her state to be traitors, even to this day. From what I read and have seen the Tlaxcalans were given many
things for being valuable allies, from lands to I think honarific titles. Tlaxcala is known for is the breeding of it's bulls for the corrida or lidia.

I've heard that there are no streets or plazas in the capital that bear Cortés' name. Is it true that his tumb is in the Mexican capital? If so, where?

I come from Southern Colorado/Northern New Mexico, where Spain and Spanish heritage
is still looked upon proudly, but not by all.

Recommended reading about Padre Bartolomé de las Casas would be worthwhile.

I did not mean to imply that these native languages were by any means eradicated, yet they have been suppressed to a degree with the homogeny of the Spanish language throughout central and south America. If anything, this occured in North America to a much larger extent, as pointed out in the original post.

Nor am I wishing to disparage the rich cultural Spanish traditions that are now so interwoven into the fabric of these regions either. Certainly each culture benefitted from a give-and-take, trading knowledge and customs and creating a new society.

I do sympathize however with the native point of view that does not blindy cast the Spanish conquest as completely altruistic. The Spanish campaigns in the Americas were primarily concerned with mercantile and evangelical interests; finding gold, silver, spices, and converting the inhabitants to Christianity. The same can be said for most European colonization through the last 500 years.

The reason Cortez conquered the Aztecs was I believe many people porbably disagree for pride and honor in the Spanish state and the church I believe gold was in their mind. But you have to remember Cortez was born in Estramadura and he wasn't very wealthy. Critisize him as much as you wan't about him trying to get gold. But this is not what the Spaniards had in their mind. Their main priority was duty and honor.

Yes, I agree, in the same way a soldier today says he follows orders and for 'duty and honor' to king and country. But soldiers are paid, and not many would be willing to fight for free. In the same way, I doubt these conquistadors would leave behind everything they know, including loved ones, to go to a far off land full full of unknown dangers for the simple, idealistic notion of god and country. They had to be paid something, and the prospects of infinite riches and fantastic adventures (remember the legends of the time: fountains of youth, mermaids, headless men, etc) was all too appealing I'm sure.

This is not to discount the great challenges they overcame, or to belittle their courage. It is just a realistic perspective on the human character. Most people do not work for free.

Quintos,
I agree with Fernando "use paragraphs"

I also agree with much of what you have said about Cortez. It is a tragedy that most Mexicans have been brain-washed by radicals who decided to slander all things Spanish. If I remember correctly, the Aztecs enjoyed killing their own through bloody sacrifices and had not even learned metalurgy by the time of Cortez's arrival. It is obvious that had Cortez not liberated the indian people from this backwards society, Mexico would still rival Papu New Guinea for its mixture of headhunters and shamans.

My personal experiences have suggested that Mexicans are generally well manered and often well educated, but they still harbour high levels of ignorance towards Spaniards and the "Mother Country". Just as an anecdote, one of my professors in Valladolid told me about her adventures in Mexico that helps demonstrate this. She travels all over Latin America giving and attending seminars about the language, but only in Mexico does she encounter snide comments about the "conquista". She told us how by just opening her mouth in a taxi is enough for the taxi-driver to lecturer her on the Spanish conquest. Mexico cannot move on until it faces reality and embraces its historical ties to Spain.

Cheers

I've always believed people should be judged based on the era they lived in. The mores of today are completely different then they were over four hundred years ago. To hold someone from that era up to today's standards is unjust.

Wolf

Rocinate the Aztecs killed many of their people by pulling their hearts out etc. etc. How can you claim that they thought the Spaniards were savages. They didn't think they were savages they thought they were gods check you history please. They believed the Spaniards were some sort of fair skinned goat god (or some thing like that) ironicaly they thought it was coming back to claim its kingdom. They were also impresed by the horses beleieve that it was some sort of Mystical beast. So your initial post about the Aztecs believing the Spaniards were savages was incorrect.

Interesting view of the history, Quintos233, and you have some good points there; Spain did not only bring disaster to South / Central America.

However, I wouldn't "glorify" the Spaniards that much either. The fact is that they did impose their culture on the conquested areas and they did steal,(at least in Peru, which I know better than Mexico) and they also assisted in making disappear the existing cultures.

But someone was right in saying that what the Spaniards did, was all in line with the moral and norms of those days, so I guess we cannot "blaim" Cortez, other Spaniards or even Aztecs, or anyone really.

However, I do find it a shame that so much or many of the cultures and languages in Central/South America disappeard - it is only in Paraguay where guarani has maintained an important role. The pre-colonial cultures were also very developed in many ways, maybe not in the same way as the European ones, but still.

It is impossible, but it would be so interesting to know, what would have happened if the Spaniards - or anyone else - had never invaded Central and South America.

K

Dude, I'm well aware of how the Aztecs viewed the Spaniards. I've well versed in this subject, as you are as well.

Yes, they thought the Spaniards they were deities coming to fulfill their legends. I am aware of all this. They certainly however, whether it's written in your history book or not, did view the Spaniards with as much trepidation and confusion as the Spaniards did the Indians, because this is human nature when 2 cultures come in contact who have had no prior experience and very little knowledge of any culture apart from their own. Again, remember the age and circumstances in which they lived.

Furthermore, I understand that trying to judge those of the past with today's mores is anachronistic, but only to a certain extent. I would not, for example, be willing to excuse the Nazi extermination on millions of Jews and Gypsies simply because they were 'mislead' by the popular politics of their time. After all, how can you blame the SS; they were just being good soldiers, following orders and standing up for what they believed in, right? Likewise, the majority of Spanish conquistadors thought the Indians were not truly human, and therefore not worthy of being treated as such - although I fully realize that there were exceptions to this generalization (thank you Bartolomé de las Casas and the like). Virtually the entire native population of the Caribean Islands was wiped out after the initial period of conquest, colinization, and enslavement in the encomienda system. They were later replace by the African slave trade (perpetuated by all western European powers at the time, especially the English).

Anyway, I'm not sure that we're arguing differing points here, or trying to show eachother that we're both very well versed in this period of history. I simply am not as quick to consider what European "discovery" and colinization did to an already flourishing civilization here in the Americas as completely benevolent. In the end, neither side was innocent, but I sympathize with the native point of view that they never really had a fighting chance.

Its claimed by American and British sources that Nazis killed 6 million jews even I believe this is a bite exagarated. I never doubt the holocaust happened but it is very possible it was exagarated or we were misinformed for Germany was after all our enemy. Rocinate: Im not trying to change you views if you believe the Spaniards thought the Indians were inhuman thats "ok". Im not gonna try to change you mind. But I disagree :p .If the Spaniards believed the Indians were lesser then them but still human. Why would they be so willing to convert these people if they thought they were some sort of sub human species.You stated that some conquistadores didn't share this view so I guess we partly agree.

The German SS were good soldiers but not very good at much of any thing else (such as caring for people)the extermanation of the Jews is truly on a diferent level then the conquest . Any how I know you didn't state that they were. Im just making a point here. So continue your views I support im not gonna try to argue you out of em. If you sympathies for Indians then you sympathies for the poor little Indians. Na just kidding guys.

Quintos states:

Suggest you go to the following

Take a look at this web page that cites ...urdered b 1945!
Below are the number murdered by country.
1. Poland 2,800,000
2. USSR (occupied terr.)
1,500,000
3. Romania 425,000
4. Hungary 200,000
5. Czechoslovakia 260,000
6. France 90,000
7. Germany 171,000
8. Lithuania 135,000
9. Holland 90,000
10. Latvia 85,000
11. Belgium 40,000
12. Greece 65,000
13. Yugoslavia 55,000
14. Austria 40,000
15. Italy 15,000
16. Bulgaria 7,000
17. Others 6,000 ________ _________
Totals 5,978,000 __________________________________________________Source: Cited in Landau, The Nazi Holocaust, Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1994.
These data originally appeared in Poliakov and Wulf (eds), Das Dritte Reich
und die Juden: Documente und Aufsatze (Arani Verlag, GmbH, Berlin, 1955).
------
All Spaniards should be proud that Spain did not give up its Jewish citizens to the Nazis, instead Spain is known as the only European country to repatriate Jews of Sephardic ancestry.

Why aren't the Gypsies and other "lesser" races on those charts why just jews. Why don't people write novels about the Gypsies that lived through the holocaust? What about the millions of Russians and Spaniards killed by fascist why aren't novels and movies done about this?..Did you know the Jewish people hold Franco as a great benefactor even thought his actions resulted in the deaths of millions of Spaniards. http://hitlerstoppedbyfranco.com/franco_jews.htm Any ways this is a bite off track my initial post was about the Conquest.

Quintos your post read: Now your post reads:
I responded to your comment about Jews, you did not mention other people that the Nazis murdered.

then you add: Yes, it is, but you brought up the topic and then others repond!

Quintos, to maintain verisimilitude in these posts, one responds to the contents of the previou(s) posts. If one of the posters brings in another topic, then this can derail the original topic.

Well actually Rocinante brought it up but ok.

Thank you Quintos. I still think you are a very sweet young man!

Quintos beat me to the point about the Gypsies being the second most group targeted by Nazis. Many other "undesirables" are calcuted in that 6 million estimate.

hey everybody

just to be accurate

the 6 million estimate murders commited by the nazis was to jews only

some 4 million more murders were done to the other races hated by hitler...gypsies,slavs,homosexuals,jehovahs witnesses,and communists.

all this rounds out to 10 million murders commited by the nazis and hitler.

of course, the 6 million murder estimate is only referring to the jewish holocaust and not the "others"

Please don't forget to add all the Christians that helped hide those unfortunates targeted by the Nazi's.

1492-1898 Honor y Gloria a nuestro pasado.

I wasn't going to get involved in this conversation but I couldn't help myself. First of all the evidence of the total number of peoples that died in the holocaust it beyond dispute. 6 millions Jews murdered, then the undesirables, gypsies, slavs, homosexuales, communists as well as the mentally ill were targeted as mentioned by Fmiketheman. Interestingly Hitler went after Jehovah's Witnesses with as much hatred as to the Jews because they refused to give their allegience to him and to the Nazi state and warned him that God would destroy him and his regime. Other peoples of different faiths were also targeted...anyone that defied him were sought after to be killed.

If people in Latin American countries in particular Mexico don't have good feelings about Hernando Cortez it is mainly because the native population that lived during the times of the conquest and thereafter for centuries did not benefit from it. Hundreds of thousands of Indians died either at the hands of the conquistadores or due to the diseases they brought with them to a people that had no immunity to them. Their lands were confiscated, a new language and religion was thrust upon them. Conversions were made at the point of a blade and torture so that other may follow and have their souls "saved". When you're referred to as less then human and "perros y desgraciados" by the clergy, it's no wonder they have little good to say about the Conquista. The typical conquistador was not a soldier of the king's army but rather a mercenary recruited out of Extremadura. Even Cortez had difficulties in keeping them in line. Gold, wealth and the conversion of the savages were the order of the day. You look at Mexico, Central America, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia. Who are the poorest and least educated of the population? The native peoples. Even the current governments of these countries pay little attention to their needs.

That is not to say that Cortez did nothing for the plight of the indians. He did establish laws that were to protect them and their lands and be treated with dignity, however when he was exiled from Mexico things changed. There were others as well that championed the cause of the Indians but for the most part they remained peasants. Is it any wonder that they rebelled?

Until recently, how many Spaniards appreciated what the Moors and Jews did for Spain? Would Spain have been better off if it was never invaded? Comparing the condition of Christian Europe and that of Morrish Spain, you wonder. So then would Mexico and Latin America be better off if Spain had never conquered it? We must remember that these people were not stupid. They were highly civilized with advance knowledge of mathematics, astronomy, agriculture and architecture. Regarding their religion, yes it was bloody, but then again, Spain had the Inquisition and zero tolerance for non Catholics.

There are just too many points of contention with this subject and I don't feel like touching on every single one of them. If you visit the Plaza of the three cultures in Mexico city, there is a large sculpture honoring the Native, Spanish and Mestizo people that emerged from that fateful clash of cultures.

Well Cortez was a conquistadore the word pretty much implies what he was. He obviously wasn't a UN worker or any thing like that. Spain I believe would be better off with out the conquest by the Moors. Because in my opinion I don't want to see Spain as an Arab country but rather more as a white European country. Thank god for the reconquista but took so damn long. Any one ever wonder why as soon as the Moors were kicked from Spain Spain created a world wide empire. The moors bounded us in chains we broke and look what we created an Empire.

hello everybody

right on quintos!

also
of course spain would be well off without the moors.it has the moors again anyhow.

osomajor
if the moors are soooo smart why is morocco a third world nation.while spain is getting better every year since the franco era.

there are more more Magrebs in Paris right now than where ever in Spain and the Moroccans in France today REALLY do mix with the population. not like when they invaded Iberia and we were the "infidel" and not married into.

Alot of people are up hyped about immagration im not as excited about it. Europe and America are really the only trully proposerous its time for other cultures to start fixing up their countries and come into the modern world instead of leaving the country and inhabiting Europe or the United States of America.

We were not discussing modern day Spain and the Arab world of today. We were discussing the world of 500 yrs ago. Don't convolute the topic here guys. You guys missed the entire point of the discussion, whether the conquest of the New World was right. Five hundred years ago the peoples of the Americas were prosperous, advanced civilizations and cities existed which by the way the Spaniards were astonished by their magnificence, order and cleanliness. They went as far as refering to Tenochtitlan (modern day Mexico City) as being grander than any city in Europe! Evidence of trade between the native population can be seen as far as northern Arizona and New Mexico and as far south as South America. With the conquista all this stopped! They did NOT need to be conquered!

Now Quintos, you say you feel that Spain would have been better off without the Moors. Hey guess what, you're feelings are exactly the same as those Mexican activists regarding the conquista. You've made my point! By the way, Mexican people appreciate both their Spanish and Native heritage.

The Arabs brought with them advanced knowledge of agriculture, rice, oranges, etc. They established colleges where medicine was taught. Islamic Spain became a cultural center of the world and Cordoba the largest city in Europe. Knowledge of human anatomy was studied and the first illustrated book on surgery was written in Cordoba. Moorish Spain was the center from which medical education in Europe largely came from. This is what Islamic culture did for Spain or would you have prefered Spain to remain as the rest of Europe, filthy, uneducated, trapped in the darkness of the Middle Ages? I can guess your answer to that...

Spain can't deny it's Morrish past and influence. But that was bad wasn't it, according to your way of thinking.

With the defeat of the last great Moorish City of Granada in 1492 the Catholic Monarchs had finally completed their reconquest and had finally ended over 700 years of Arab political influence in Spain. Even though the Catholics, were unrelenting in their pursuit of killing any memory of Islam in Spain it would have been impossible to erase over seven centuries of Arabic artistic and cultural influences. The Great cities of the Muslim Spain, Cordoba, Granada, Cordoba, Seville are a testament to that influence.

I don't believe that conquest is ever good. Yet because of it there is an interchange of influence on both sides. The influence can be so great one may wonder who is the conqueror and who is the conquered!

Yea true. But remember Mexico did not exist as a true entity before the Spaniards came it was made up of several tribes. Do you consider all these tribes put together Mexico. What about the tribes that make up Belize and are also in Mexico are they also Mexican. The fact is Mexico didn't even exist so how can a Mexican say they didn't want to be conquered when if they werent conquered their culture and nation would be none existent. Mexico if not conquested by Spain would not be United the Way it is now it would a group faction tribes. In less of course some other European power took over. The Aztecs didn't rule all of modern day Mexico it is ridicolous to say that they represent Mexico as a whole. Now your probably going to bring up the Moorish conquest of Spain which you say has nothing to do with the conquest. All though if you knew your history youd most certainly understand that it does. Spain before the moors came was united the Moors just helped devide more hence the diferent culture aspects of the Andulacians and their sometime seperatist behavior. Yes the Moors did help Spain in technology aspects but didn't necesarily help the Spanish state as a whole. When the conquered become the conquerers it is some what of a paradox. But Spanish conquest of Mexico might be more help full for Mexico as a whole. Less help full for the natives and their culture.

Where in my post did I refer to the Aztecs, Quintos? My post was quite deliberate to include ALL native peoples, not once did I mention Aztecs! My reference to Tenochtitlan was to make a point that even the Spaniards that visited there were astonished at the accomplishments of those people. Also, the Aztecs didn't refer to themselves as such, they called themselves Mejica, from which Mexico is derived. Hence there empire in Engish would be more appropriately called the Mejica empire. So in essence, yes there was a Mexico. Though the modern nation of Mexico was founded in 1810 with the Independece from Spain and the modern constitution of 1824 establishing it as the Republic of Mexico. Spain, nor Cortez established or founded Mexico. What was established was Nueva Espana, the richest colony in the Americas. Nor did Spain do anything to united the peoples, other than forcing them to accept Catholicism. To a Spaniard back then it didn't matter whether you were Mayan, Mejica or Inca for that matter. An Indian was as Indian.

To say that Mexicans today have no right to condemn the conquest simply because the nation of Mexico didn't exit is rediculous. I believe you are Spanish, correct? Well then my friend you have no right to condemn the conquest of Spain by the Moors anymore than the Mexicans can of Mexico simply because the nation of Spain did not exist at the time of the Iberian conquest! The nation of Spain did not exist back then, the Iberian penninsula was broken up by various independent kingdoms separate from each other. Castilla, Galicia, Asturias, The Basque Regions, Navarra, Aragon, Leon, Cataluyna were all separate kingdoms. Can you speak for Asturians or Catalans or Basques? Im sure Cristobo Carrin or CaliBasco would differ in your opinion.

You cannot say with complete certainty that Mexico or should I say the land that became Mexico is ultimately better off due to it's conquest by Spain. No one can. Is Spain better off due to the invasions of Moors, Celts, Romans, Visigoths? Why don't you ask a native Iberian, that is if one still exists!

Well if Spain did not exist back then. As you say then the Moors did nothing to help unite by invading it and imposing their culture. Or by tearing the North and South apart. I dislike when people compare things that they think are similar. Such as what you have done above with Mexico and Spain. (ill give you credit for your knowledge about Spanish history if you are of Mexican decent or American decent im quite surprised that you know our history) A pure blooded Iberian is extinct now. But the blood of Spaniards continues to carry their blood.

Quintos quote:

"I dislike when people compare things that they think are similar. Such as what you have done above with Mexico and Spain."

Ditto, Quintos!
--------------------------------------------------
(ill give you credit for your knowledge about Spanish history if you are of Mexican decent or American decent im quite surprised that you know our history)

I guess I'll take that as a compliment...Back in my time (prior to the computer age), we had an archaic system of obtaining information...they were known as...books!

It's a shame you can't grasp the correlation between the two events, but Im tired of beating a dead horse.

Verbum sapiente sat est, Quintos. Translation: A word to the wise is sufficient.

In time as you get older you will appreciate that it's more important to know who you are rather than what you are. What is a Spaniard, Mexican, Arab or American? Break it down to the basic simple common denominator...we're men (women inclusive).

Regarding my background, yes, I am an American...of Mexican/Spanish decent.

Saludos, and on to a new topic, for me at least

I want to show you how the Moors looked like:

Paintings of the Moors....(painted on the XIII century in Spain):

http://www.angelfire.com/md/8/moors.html

As you can see they were white. The Northafricans of today are heavily mixed, so they are not white. 1200 years ago, when they came into Spain they were different, most were totally white (berbers).

-Genetical study that shows that the genetic influence of the moors in Spain despite their presence of 8 centuries was minimal, almost inexistent (so those that say that there is an important influence of the moors in the genetic pool of the Spaniards are completely wrong. 93% of Spaniards have 0% of northafrican blood. Can the French say the same now?):

High-Resolution Analysis of Human Y-Chromosome Variation Shows a Sharp Discontinuity and Limited Gene Flow between Northwestern Africa and the Iberian Peninsula

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v68n4/002582/002582.html

Quintos,

You are correct in your observation of Cortes and the Conquest. The Conquistadors are frequently portrayed by Anglo or American historians as nothing but cruel, evil, greedy men, starting wiht columbus and going on from there. Maybe this is to assauge their guilt over how the Indians were treated in North America. Maybe it is because these pseudo-intellectuals have an anti-Catholic mindset. Maybe both.

I love to read about history, especially American history and the history of the Western Hemisphere. I have read a few books about the conquistadors, and the way that they are portrayed depends on the source - Catholic, which tends to favor Cortes, or secular, which damns them all.

The secular history writers tend to ignore the Aztec custom of human sacrifice, which the Spainards found to be especally galling and disgusting. It is true that the Aztecs and Incas had highly developed societies and especially the Aztecs, a developed economy and a complex legal system. However, the tribes that had been ruled by the Aztecs hated them and wanted to be rid of them. Cortes would never have been successful without Indian help.

It has been true throughout history that conquerors end up being conquered themselves, or at least they lose their empires. The Aztecs conqueres, and they were conquered. Spain had an empire, and lost it, and was invaded by France, and had to rely on its ancient foe, Britian, to aid in its repulsion of Napoleoon´s army.

Many think that the Spainiards succeeded in "ramming" the Catholic faith down the throats of the Indians and pillaging for gold. Nothing more.

Well, was the rest of Eurpoe treating Africa any better? They got it worse.

The Jesuits were far better towards the Indian tribes than anyone else. So much so that they were kicked out by the Spanish soverign.

Secular writers ignore the presence of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Juan Diego´s tilma as a factor in the conversion of millions of Mexican Indians to the Catholic Church. The tilma is still in Mexico City for anyone to see.

The Spanianrds were often cruel to the Indian. Would Britian or France or Holland been any better? If not Cortes, it could have been someone like Henry Morgan or Francis Drake who invaded Mexico. It was the British and the Portugese who engaged the heaviest in the slave trade.

It is a shame that the history of the Western Hemisphere is not taught better, or at all. How many people know that Spain came in on the side of the United States during our Revolutionary War?
I had a link on my old PC that led to a website documenting Spain´s (and Cuba´s) help in the revolution. the Spanish kicked the British out of the Missisippi Valley. The Havana society ladies donated money to Washington´s army to keep fighting. St. Augustine, Florida was founded 43 years before Jamestown and 56 years before Plymouth. Santa Fe, New Mexico was founded in 1600, also before any English settlement. Coronado and his men searched through the American Great Plains in the mid 16th century. Spain did not really know what they had! Of the four most populous states in the US, three of them were in the possession of Spain after the Revolution - California, Texas and Florida.

whether one approves or not, Spain´s influence and impact on the New World centuries ago has helped to shape things as they are today.

Joe, I enjoyed your post. I too am fascinated by the influence of the Spaniards in the American Southwest. One author that I would recommend to those who think the Spaniards were clearly the guys in the proverbial black hats is Christy Turner, a professor at Arizona State University. His book, MAN CORN, gives chilling evidence of the cannibalism practiced by the Aztecs and the impact of that practice on the indigenous peoples of the area.

Anytime one group of people are conquered by another, there is both something lost and something gained. Here in the Southwest, the native peoples certainly lost a lot of their culture, but they also benefited. One of the traditional meals of some of our desert people, folks who had to find food in an arid area where farming was iffy and where hunting was difficult, was a thing called "second harvest." The natives would look for partially digested seeds in the droppings of animals, wash them off, and eat them. The Spaniards did indeed destroy that part of their culture, substituting some livestock and some agriculture for the second harvest. Do you suppose the native peoples would like to go back to those good old days? I think not.

hey everybody

joe

i suggest you stop believing the leyenda negra inspired american and british writings on spanish history and accomplishments.

its all about envy coming from their less glorious history and the greatness of the united catholic monorchs.

you should read spanish writings on their own history.that way you will know the truth.if you dont know spanish doesnt mean you cant read about the truth,because were telling you the truth right now on madridmans great website.

I too enjoyed your post, Joe. The revisionists like to apply today's standards/values to yesterday's history. Thanks to them most of our school aged children are totally confused about history. Who's to say that our 20th/21st century values may be seen as lacking by our 22nd century descendants!

Regardless of one's personal perception about a historical fact, one cannot go back and surmise as if history would have been positively different, if such had not happened or had happened differently. History's cannon is slow to change for good reason, only when unimpeachable "evidence" is found are historical facts changed in the cannon of historical research. Not because of commonly held beliefs of a group.

fmiketheman, by the way, did you read Joe's remarks carefully, he was agreeing with you and Quintos.

hey everybody

Mr. Mike,

I don't know what the "leyenda negra" is so please fill me in.

I wasn´t trying to pass judgement on the behavior of the Spanish in the New World. The British, Spanish, Portugese and Dutch did what they did according to the values of their time - and whether or not they held to those values.

To veer off subject a bit - much is made of the Spanish Inquisition and the Catholic Monarchs´ intolerance of the Jews. Certainly it was a shameful period in Spanish and in Catholic history. Yet little or nothing is made of King Henry VIII´s treatment of Catholics in England after he wanted his divorce from his wife, Catheraine of Aragon, a Spaniard (I believe).

My wife is a caleña (de Colombia). I became interested in Spanish influence in the New World after I met her and it is one of my favorite periods in history.

When I was in high school, little was taught about the Conquistadors and Spain in World History. I knew nothing of Bolívar until I read about it three years ago. Fine - In the US, laws and language are based on that of Britian. But what it does is ignore what else happened in the Western Hemisphere and the history of our neighbors. And that´s just plain wrong. Even today, news from Latin America is scarce while we hear about the Middle East daily.

FWIW, I and my señora plan to travel to Spain and Nicaragua next year. I have a cousin in Madrid and her best friend, who is of Nicaraguan and Colombian descent, lives near Managua. I´m looking forward to the experinece.

hey everybody

ok mr.joe
hehe

la leyenda negra the black legend are the LIES written by british politicals and passed down generations about spain and spanih history.

I would say there also anti-spanish at that time.
it was done in intention to represent "contraversiol" things the spanish have done in their history in negetive light if possible.

it was all done out of envy of the strong spanish empire and united and prosperous catholic monarchs.
spain was the united states of that age.so envy was quite possible.

the u.s also copied the brits in this.they were pissed by the spanish -american war and at mexico and were also anti-catholic at the time.so they used this method to avenge spain.
the brits were also anti catholic back then

hope i did not bore you but thats what the black legend is.

Folks, there is a wonderful article that appeared in the Cornell Review several months ago dealing with this same topic. specifically with all the misinformation about the Spanish Inquisition. It is worth a close look. Joe, the Wikipedia web site has this to say about the "Black Legend" or Leyenda Negra.
I agree that the root of the Leyend lies at the feet of the Reformation. Until very recently, not only were the Spaniards and their Latino decendents included in this bit of ignorance, but the Irish as well, the "Black Irish, Catholics, to be specific.

Thank you, Brooklady and Mike, for filling me in.

I have read what I can find on these subjects, but I am by no means an expert.

¡Que tengan una buen semana, todos!

That is most definetly true could not agree with you more fmiketheman.

hey everybody

quintos

of course

I just want to make one thing clear here what im trying to get across to people. Is that all the act of the conquest of the Aztecs is Spain was and is war,conquest,and death and it is also much more. It is up to you how you percieve on the greatest clashes of man kind the conquistadores and and what came of em continure to exist to this day dont be ignorant. I also want to state that I dont consider my self an expert just some one that notices excesive emphasize on the negative aspects of the Spanish Empire.

Any how I think we have squezed about as much we could out of this topic.