I have read autistic amounts of papers about Spanish America. Ask me anything.

Home Forums History I have read autistic amounts of papers about Spanish America. Ask me anything.

Viewing 41 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #137941
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I have read autistically amounts of papers about Spanish America. Ask me anything

    • #137942
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Any book recommendations on the conquest of Aztecs and/or Incas?

      • #137943
        Anonymous
        Guest

        All the books about it are revisionist reconstructions woke af on indiginism or the Spanish accounts which are clearly biased. I would still pick the Spanish accounts as they were less politically charged. There is also a lot more information about Mexico than South America about the topic
        >True story of the conquest of New Spain
        >Wrecks – Cabeza de Vaca
        >General and natural history of the Indies, islands and firm land- Fernández de Oviedo y Valdés

        • #137945
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >All the books about it are revisionist reconstructions woke af on indiginism or the Spanish accounts which are clearly biased.
          Almost none of the books are woke af on indigenism compared to centuries of conquistador chronicles regurgitations, why are you lying?

        • #137966
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Why do you believe that the Spanish chronicles were biased. If you say biased it means that you know what really happened instead of the chronicles writers.
          That a writer prefer his own teology and culture and that his soldiers win battoes?
          That is normal. WhaT shoUld they write to not be biased?
          that sacrifices were good?? Spain did an enormous work in America and for being the XVI century they were pioneers in Human Rigths, Morality and Respect. Just compare it to other powers and their colonies 300 years.
          In that time witches were burnt in northern Europe or 400 years later the USA was still hanging blacks on trees.
          Spain even stopped all colonization in 1530 to debate during 2 years about the morality of it.

          What Spain did was massive incredible. It is obvious that a 5% could be abusers of indians but even today we see the same everyday anywhere

          • #137968
            Anonymous
            Guest

            not OP, but I wouldn’t call them biased, but "rhetorical", as all historians were back then. Basically, they would form a discourse, in form of a thesis and would relate information to confirm that discourse. For example, Bartolomé de las Casas, exaggerated some stuff in his Brevissima to prove the conquerors were destroying the Indies. He also toned down some stuff in his Apologética to prove Indians were more pious than pagans. Gomara in his Hispania Victrix wanted to paint Cortés as a new Caesar, and that didn’t rub so good with the King. Antonio de Herrera, despite being a very good narrator, wanted to show how spaniards civilized the barbarians, so his text went down that line.

            Remember critical profesional history wasn’t invented until the XVIIIth century, back then, History was more of a rhetorical field for the high classes to insert in their discourses and to teach princes good manners.

            • #138035
              Anonymous
              Guest

              I was talking about Conquista de la Njeva España. The chronicler is not biased. He says things like he sees them. For me it was wuite neutral. EVen he said that he wrote the chronicles so no one pay attention to Gomara and other liers.

          • #137980
            Anonymous
            Guest

            It is biased in the same way the Roman historians were biased. We don’t truly know all details at the Spnish wrote down what they wanted, which is normal in my opinion

            How long did it take for Mexico and Peru to become majority Hispanic, as opposed to majority indigenous? How long do you think the old religion held out in occupied areas?

            Both of them were majority native in the early XIX century, but as the native republics lacked land due the tremendous growth rate, natives were forced to move to haciendas and cities, or to trade more with them which meant that a lot of them were already hispanized. The process of hispanization accelerated in the XIX century after independence

            Where can I read about Spanish colonial administration besides just the regular boring conquest of the Inca and Aztec?

            not OP, but if you know Spanish, "Manual del derecho indiano" by Dougnac is where to start, he basically outlines how everything worked and how it transformed through time. It is a boring read though, because it is intended to teach university students how the empire in America was run and not a narrative history of things that happened.

            Alternatively you have Von Humboldt which is an account of it from the perspective of a Prussian enlightened person

            Why don’t the Philippinos speak Spanish?

            The Spanish presence on the Phillippines wasn’t as robust as in America and the church had a lot of power. Priests didn’t like to teach natives Spanish as this would mean that they would learn about modern ideas and potentially rebel or abandon the faith.
            I would say that if the Phillipines got its independence earlier it would be a Spanish speaking country now as criollos were always more progressive (at that time jacobinism was considered progressive) than the Spaniards ever were. In fact even Pinoy independence leaders like Rizal were in favor of hispanization as a way to unify the country.

            • #137981
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >I would say that if the Phillipines got its independence earlier it would be a Spanish speaking country now

              >tfw Hispanic Filipinas could’ve existed had they achieved independence at the same time as Mexico

              imagine the cultural kino

            • #137982
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >I would say that if the Phillipines got its independence earlier it would be a Spanish speaking country now as criollos were always more progressive (at that time jacobinism was considered progressive) than the Spaniards ever were. In fact even Pinoy independence leaders like Rizal were in favor of hispanization as a way to unify the country.

              Wrong, there were fewer Spanish speakers in the early 19th Century Philippines and further back. When the Philippines became the last remaining major colony of Spics, only then did Liberal Spics actually gave a fuck in educating the Flips in their tongue, starting with the Public education decree of 1860s.

              If the Philippines did achieve independence in 1898 and Amerimutts didn’t nab the place, they would end up using Spanish as a Lingua Franca. However this won’t mean the demise of native languages since most of the Flip Masses still weren’t educated in Spanish by that point.

              • #137983
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >If the Philippines did achieve independence in 1898 and Amerimutts didn’t nab the place, they would end up using Spanish as a Lingua Franca.

                Wouldn’t that Aguinaldo or Andres guy have made Tagalog the national language?

                • #137984
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  Andres Bonifacio- being a ethnonationalist pleb- would’ve. Except him and the pleb revolutionaries got overthrown by the landed elite nationalists.

                  Emilio Aguinaldo meanwhile was an landed elite believer of European-style liberal republicanism whose idea of the nation was it being a hispano-asian liberal republic.

                  And according the constitution of Aguinaldo’s government, this is what the Elite nationalists had to say about language.

                  Título XIV — De la Observancia y Juramento Constitucional y de los Idiomas (On Constitutional Observance and Oath of Office, and on Languages)

                  "Article 93 The use of the languages spoken in
                  the Philippines shall not be compulsory. It cannot be regulated except by virtue of law and only for acts of public authority and judicial
                  affairs. On such occasions, the Spanish language shall temporarily be used."

                  Basically the official lingua franca is Spanish, but it’s not the national language.

                  • #137985
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >On such occasions, the Spanish language shall temporarily be used.

                    So Tagalog would’ve eventually been the national language anyway?

                    • #137987
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      Its complicated. At the time the language that had most speakers in the Philippines was Bisaya. But the non-Spanish language primarily spoken in the Colonial capital, which enjoyed buttloads of higher educational facilities (colleges, the 1 university in the colony) and printing offices- was in the Tagalog region. Meaning the Tagalogs had more scholars and published material than any other language group in the Islands. You could see this in Flip history: most of the OG Revolutionaries & Nationalist thinkers- Rizal, Del Pilar, Bonifacio, Aguinaldo & co.- were Tagalog people.

                      At the same time though the Nationalists know that not everyone under Spanish controlled Philippines spoke Tagalog, but what did unify Tagalog & Non-Tagalog nationalists together was the Spanish language. So for the time being they used Spanish as the official Lingua Franca.

                      • #137990
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Thank you for your answer Flipbro, It’s always interesting to learn about the Hispanic Asians and their revolutions. Some of us consider you as our asian cousins.

                      • #138114
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Some of us consider you as our asian cousins.
                        That’s interesting, because we generally don’t return the favor, and we only really know of Latin America through telenovelas. Since American education pretty much cut us off from the Hispanic cultural sphere, most Filipino intellectuals are decidely Anglophile, and the ones that aren’t are Asiaboos of some flavor. Interestingly, there were quite a few Philippine writers in Spanish even after the colonial period, and Spanish trudged on as a social language among select elite circles until the mid-century.

                      • #138053
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        sounds like Classical Nahuatl in early colonial New Spain. Spanish didn’t really kick in until late in the 1600s. Nahua actually increased its proportionate share (at other indigenous languages’ expense) under the Spaniards.
                        In pure numbers of course it declined like all the others declined, because of the cocolitzli.

              • #137986
                Anonymous
                Guest

                How did what I say contradict what you said and why do you assume the Phillipines could only achieve independence in 1898 and not before that?

                • #137988
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  Because there were fewer Spanish speakers in the Philippines prior 1860s? Cmon man.

                  >why do you assume the Phillipines could only achieve independence in 1898 and not before that?
                  Philippine Nationalism wasn’t a thing before the late 19th Century. Prior to that what you had in Flipdom were a bunch of Creole & Filipino liberals asking for represntation for the Philippines in the Spanish Court.

                  • #137989
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >Philippine Nationalism wasn’t a thing before the late 19th Century.

                    ??? Cavite Mutiny? Silang Rebellion? Novales Revolt?

                    Hell even back in the 1600s, you had the Macabebes and Rajah Tupas.

                    Philippine Nationalism wasn’t a new concept, we spent centuries fighting the Spaniards.

                    • #137992
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      >Cavite Mutiny?
                      Angry Filipino Soldiers pissed off with a new tax law by a new, Conservative Spanish Governor General, who wanted to tax government employees.
                      >Silang Rebellion
                      Anti-Spanish revolt by an Ilocano out to free just Ilocos. He didn’t give a fuck about the entire islands.
                      >Novales Revolt
                      While Andres Novales did want to liberate the Philippines as the Philippine Empire (woke af), his was an unpopular revolt, seeing as it only lasted 1 night and involved angery Mexican soldiers who wanted to copy the revolt in Mexico. Native Filipino soldiers helped put down the revolt even.

                      >Macabebes and Rajah Tupas
                      Out to protect the Kingdom of Manila vs. Spanish.

                      The Philippines as a national identity was a product of the late 19th Century as intellectuals from all over the Philippines all pointed out to its inhabitants that all inhabitants of the Philippines- Natives, Creoles, and Mestizos- suffered from the same illiberal oppression by the Spanish colonial government. And since Spain didn’t want to give the Philippines equal rights and representation, then it was better that it followed the example of Latin America and revolt.

                  • #137991
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >Because there were fewer Spanish speakers in the Philippines prior 1860s?
                    The elite in Manila was still widely Spanish speaking. You had the case of Novales becoming emperor which could have speed up the process of hispanization in urban areas, as I said the Spanish, specially the conservatives, thought that hispanization would cause rebellions so they decided to not do it or slow it down when they got into power

            • #138095
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >Von Humboldt which is an account of it from the perspective of a Prussian enlightened person
              I can vouch for Mr. Humboldt as well. Very well written and exciting travelogue by a talented naturalist and observer of human character. His detestation of slavery is touching in particular.
              >Personal Narrative of Travels to the Equinoctial Regions of America, During the Year 1799-1804
              https://gutenberg.org/ebooks/6322
              https://gutenberg.org/ebooks/7014
              https://gutenberg.org/ebooks/7254

              The only one seething is you. I love it when old cracker subhumans cry about their country being "whiter" when they were kids. No matter what you say, no insult will ever sting as hard as being replaced.

              >no insult will ever sting as hard as being replaced
              Yes, especially being replaced by someone who thinks like a /poo/tard. You really are the worst of both worlds.

        • #138042
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Woke af alert

        • #138056
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Thanks for revealing yourself as an imbecile this early in the thread so I don’t have to waste my time reading the rest

          • #138057
            Anonymous
            Guest

            t. scrotebrain

          • #138058
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >recommend primary sources
            >imbecile
            Why? Could you elaborate angry little man?

          • #138086
            Anonymous
            Guest

            My exact same thoughts

        • #138082
          Anonymous
          Guest

          lmao kys

        • #138119
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >or the Spanish accounts which are clearly biased
          No shit, but that doesn’t make them wrong

    • #137944
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Is it true about the mayans? Did kukulcan was Enki from mesapatamia? And also, the pharaoh had a aztec gourd buried in the pyramids. HOW?

    • #137947
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Did the Aztecs and Incans know of each other?

      • #137951
        Anonymous
        Guest

        There were trade routes throughout all of America which explains why some crops were present all throughout the continent

        Why were the Spaniards such mustache-twirling villains during their reign over Latin Americans?

        >Why were the Spaniards such mustache-twirling villains during their reign over Latin Americans?
        It depends where and when. I would say Columbus was pretty cartoonishly evil by our standards and even to those of the Spaniards back then.
        Cortés and Pizarro are a mix bag and are overly villified nowadays.
        The Spanish crown was always very benevolent, and the institution natives tended to like the most, which becomes clear in the wars of independence, but their power was limited to the large administrative cities.
        By the end of the XVIII century Spanish rule was a lot better than what followed it after independence.
        At the end the conquest was an incredible shock to the natives due several factors, but it is important to note that the people that overthrew the Inca and Aztec empires were mostly the native allies who gained a lot of power and independence after the conquest.

        • #137958
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >The Spanish crown was always very benevolent, and the institution natives tended to like the most
          Why?

          • #137960
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >Why?
            Because for the crown the question of the natives was theological, not economical like the Encomenderos. Every time there was a discussion about the natives the crown sided with them specially at the beginning (laws of Burgos, Leyes Nuevas, Phillip the II refusing to force them to learn Spanish, etc).
            It is also important to note that the crown also guaranteed a lot of natives a lot of independence and they had a lot of tax exemptions in exchange of paying a tiny tribute , which got abolished once the independence war finishes.
            In fact, if you read Charles Darwin you will see a lot of the natives telling him that they miss the king of Spain. The process of hispanization and the large empobrishment of natives it is more of a XIX century thing than one that spawn in the XVI century, as a lot of natives had high positions of powers (Caciques, aristocrats and some very wealthy monopolists and merchants) in the colonial period.

            • #137961
              Anonymous
              Guest

              I see
              thanks

        • #137959
          Anonymous
          Guest
        • #138004
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >Columbus was pretty cartoonishly evil by our standards and even to those of the Spaniards back then.
          he was italian garden gnome so no wonder

    • #137949
      Anonymous
      Guest

      My last name is Ayala

      How woke af am I

    • #137950
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Why were the Spaniards such mustache-twirling villains during their reign over Latin Americans?

      • #137955
        Anonymous
        Guest

        They weren’t

      • #137973
        Anonymous
        Guest

        They weren’t, they were just actively larping as Romans and believed in the righteous, benevolent rule of a class of well-educated aristocrats over the more laissez-faire approach of the Anglos. The problem was that they were trying to exert central control and micromanage their far-flung colonies in an era where instant communication was non-existent and transportation moved at a snail’s pace. Spain issued a ton of edicts in the colonial period, so many that were impossible to enforce, meaning that laws were only selectively enforced, such that a tradition of rule of law could never really develop.

    • #137952
      Anonymous
      Guest

      did you read actual historiography or just meme American books? I can basically tell by how you answer the next question:
      What were the territorial divisions and subdivisions of the empire in America?

      • #137954
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >What were the territorial divisions and subdivisions of the empire in America?
        It depends on the period. At the beginning the division followed the traditional Spanish system
        >Kingdom (Viceroys representing the power there and in some cases capitancies acted in a similar way)
        >Audiencias
        >Cabildos
        >Alcaldes
        With some novel components such as the native republics who had a lot of independence removing clerical matters and that negotiated their tribute with the audiencia (which is why the Audiencias had more power in areas with a lot of natives such as Quito).
        The Borbon kings introduced the institution of the Intendencia which decentralized the administration into different provinces that had a lot more autonomy (an independent treasury) and then these intendias from time to time had to transfer part of their treasury to the areas of interest of the crown such as Montevideo or Buenos Aires who were largely subsidized by the silver of Potosí.

        • #137956
          Anonymous
          Guest

          woke af, sorry for doubting you mr. OP. You keep encountering people in this page the insist that Capitanías Generales were a thing

          • #137957
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Np, I have seen a lot of lies here

    • #137953
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Do you think the Norte Chico civilization was G2a Anatolian males building flat topped pyramids exactly like they did in other G2a areas such as pre-Semitic Sumeria or Sardinia and that could possibly explain mtDNA X as opposed to the Solutrean Hypothesis?

      Would this explain why the Spanish saw Caucasoids in the Andes and possibly why the Easter Island moai (which we now know to be carved by "South Americans") depict physical characteristics of Caucasian (ie Anatolian) temple building theocrats from the mainland?

    • #137962
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Why was Uruguay/Argentina so heavily colonized while other areas remained mostly indigenous?

      • #137963
        Anonymous
        Guest

        They were lightly colonized in fact. The main focus of Spanish immigration was always Mexico.
        They are less indigenous due multiple reasons
        >Smaller native population
        >Very high birthrates of whites (8 kids per women)
        >Abundance of food which lowered child mortality
        Also Argentinians have a much higher native component than white Americans for example. Gauchos did mix extensively with the natives, specially the more you approach the northern provinces.
        You also have to take into account that Argentina is whiter than Chile because it recieved a lot more immigrants in the XIX century due the economic potential of the region and the boom of the beef industry. Without this immigration wave Argentina would look similar to Chile in terms of demographics (probably fewer pure natives as the Mapuches were very feisty and concentrate mostly in Chile)

        • #138049
          Anonymous
          Guest

          should also mention European and African diseases which assraped those natives who hadn’t already bred with those Europeans and Africans. Never mind the smallpox, the cocoliztli was what bonked them

    • #137964
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Iam going to bed. If anyone has more questions just write them down and I will answer when I wake up

      • #137965
        Maya
        Guest

        threads die in the night

    • #137967
      Anonymous
      Guest

      How long did it take for Mexico and Peru to become majority Hispanic, as opposed to majority indigenous? How long do you think the old religion held out in occupied areas?

      • #137974
        Anonymous
        Guest

        It was probably majority Hispanic by the 1700s. The friar Bartolome De Las Casas wrote that much of the native population died off during the mid-1600s. After this their population never really recovered until recent times and even then there’s no way to tell exactly what the demographic makeup of Mexico was immediately after Spanish settlement.

        • #138066
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >A bishop dead in 1566 writes about 1650

          Miracle! Santo Subito!

    • #137969
      Anonymous
      Guest

      why are we still here, just to suffer?

    • #137970
      Anonymous
      Guest

      why is LULZ obsessed with colonial Spain?

      • #137972
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Because it’s kino. English and French America was the most boring shit.

        • #137976
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Not wrong but I just assumed it was LARPing spics constantly bringing it up

          • #137977
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Go back

            […]

      • #138026
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Its a very important piece of American history.

    • #137971
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Where can I read about Spanish colonial administration besides just the regular boring conquest of the Inca and Aztec?

      • #137975
        Anonymous
        Guest

        not OP, but if you know Spanish, "Manual del derecho indiano" by Dougnac is where to start, he basically outlines how everything worked and how it transformed through time. It is a boring read though, because it is intended to teach university students how the empire in America was run and not a narrative history of things that happened.

    • #137978
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Why don’t the Philippinos speak Spanish?

    • #137999
      Anonymous
      Guest

      List 5 -10 of your favourite books that you’ve read about the topic, if you don’t mind.

    • #138000
      Anonymous
      Guest

      There is nothing interesting about these countries. But natives before them are extremely fascinating.

    • #138002
      Anonymous
      Guest

      What do you know about Crypto-Muslims in the colonies?

      • #138003
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >What do you know about Crypto-Muslims in the colonies?
        Very rare if any. Crypto-garden gnomes were more common, but the flow of people to America was highly regulated and these kind of people were officially banned from going to make the colonies stable

        • #138005
          Anonymous
          Guest

          I have read that there are parts of Mexico with distinctly ‘moorish’ muslim traditions. In Lima it was also a tradition that the women would wear burkas. There are also reports of crypto-muslims being burned in the new world during the inquisitions

          • #138006
            Anonymous
            Guest

            They are not burkas. Women in Spain were covering their face/hair even in the XX century.

            • #138007
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Anything that you find about crypto-muslims or garden gnomes was very residual and the inquisition condenmed around 300 people in all of America during 3 centuries (mostly English men btw) which is pretty indicative of how minor were this minorities

            • #138008
              Anonymous
              Guest

              It’s a direct borrowing from Moorish Spain continued on in Lima. Those coverings in your picture are not even remotely the same

              • #138010
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >It’s a direct borrowing from Moorish Spain continued on in Lima
                It is not, as I said it was common for women to cover their faces and hair in Spain (and in most of Europe) until very recently, it has nothing to do with a moorish community.
                Lima was the center of Spanish authority in all South America (and the inquisition) and thinking that they were tolerating a muslim minority is just a tinfoil tier theory.
                Cryptogarden gnomes for example settled in places with little Spanish authority such as the north of Mexico (for example Monterrey) and the little moriscos that settled in America probably came to America ilegally and settled under similar circumstances

              • #138036
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >It is not, as I said it was common for women to cover their faces and hair in Spain (and in most of Europe) until very recently, it has nothing to do with a moorish community.
                you’re literally just wrong. read some more papers

                Nah, that anon is right, the use of a veil was a catholic tradition between the women of that era. That’s why any woman that is in front of the Pope should use a black veil, by canon law. Except for, ironically, the spanish queen which could use a white one by "privilège du blanc".

                • #138051
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  man, Francis looks absolutely miserable in that pic.

                  • #138127
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >looks
                    Probably he was.

                  • #138134
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >why yes i must smile to one of the leaders of the rival elite group ive sworn my soul and body to destroy

              • #138069
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Jesus mudshits are delusional.
                Holy crap the absolute state of you brainwashed scrotebrains. Women used to cover up in general you had people with covers on most regions never touched by your death cult.

          • #138014
            Anonymous
            Guest

            https://www.juntadeandalucia.es/cultura/agendaculturaldeandalucia/evento/documento-del-mes-%E2%80%9Cmujeres-tapadas%E2%80%9D
            This is actually a tradition that was common in Andalucia (40% of the immigrants from America came from there), and it was more of a fashion choice in the XVI and XVII century than a religious statement.

            • #138015
              Anonymous
              Guest

              It literally says how this clothing was Arabic

              • #138016
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >Spaniards copy Arab clothing in the south
                >This trend is copied in the colonies as European novelties were seeing as exotic
                This means that the practice was not brought by moriscos (who were banned to go to America and if they arrived to the continent the last thing they wanted to was to get anyone’s attention) but by Andalusian immigrants that liked that fashion.
                The only records from the crown about moriscos are about slaves (mostly women) and about ilegal immigration who were persecuted, these are not the kind of people that start a trend in a city.

                • #138018
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >he thinks that distinguishing between Andalusians and Moriscos was easy in the 16th century
                  lol

            • #138037
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Ignorant. Whatever you read from a public institution hadbeen written by an extremeleftist feminazi that needs to sell crap. Allwomen in Europe covered their heads jjst until 60-70 years ago. In fact it is still quite common in Eastern Europe. I am from Galicia (zero muslims here ever) and I still see old women with some clothing covering the hair.

              • #138038
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >. I am from Galicia (zero muslims here ever) and I still see old women with some clothing covering the hair
                Can you find me a historical record of a Galician women covering their face like (entire face except 1 eye)

                I have read that there are parts of Mexico with distinctly ‘moorish’ muslim traditions. In Lima it was also a tradition that the women would wear burkas. There are also reports of crypto-muslims being burned in the new world during the inquisitions

                • #138040
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  Only the hair. And if you look carefully that women(whoever she is) is using her hand to move the cloth to cover her face.

                  • #138041
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >is using her hand to move the cloth to cover her face.
                    So you don’t have any

      • #138009
        Anonymous
        Guest

        they were remnants of colonization attempts by berbers

    • #138019
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Can we say that the Inca Empire lacked writing? Because if so, the notion that all class societies have to have writing collapses.

    • #138020
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Did the Spanish monarchs feel bad for completely annihilating the natives of the caribbean?

      • #138023
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Did the aztecs or the inca for obliterating rival tribes?

        Live by the sword, die by the sword.

    • #138021
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Why is it that almost all Hispanistas are Mestizos and Indigenismos are Whites?

    • #138022
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Who was right, Sepúlveda or las Casas?

    • #138027
      Anonymous
      Guest

      […]

      do you know what a morisco is? You don’t know what you’re talking about

    • #138028
      Anonymous
      Guest

      in your opinion, what was the influence of the King in the American affairs? I just have knowledge about my region, in which, the King orders practically configured everything. I know, from talks, that Mexicans believe the king was a distant figure with almost no influence in regional politics. Don’t know how it is for other places.

    • #138029
      Anonymous
      Guest

      how culturally similar would you say they are to America in comparison to Spain? more? less?

    • #138030
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Is there any good English language resource for Spanish (or Portuguese, if you read about those) voyages to southeast Asia? Have any of the journals from those times been translated to English? I’m mostly interested in the economic activity, but exploration/conquest is fine, too.

    • #138031
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Why don’t you include Spanish Louisiana in your map? Many of the buildings in the "French" quarter New Orleans are actually of Spanish architecture, since a huge ass fire destroyed the city during Spanish times. I know it was only a little short of 40 years but it’s worth noting.

    • #138033
      Anonymous
      Guest

      […]

      >they were not responsible
      After seeing their destruction the Spanish handled and treated the mainland natives differently. The early spaniards treated the caribbean natives as if they were an unexpendable resource, ffs they saw the population drop to 5% of its pre contact size just after 25 years.

      Did the aztecs or the inca for obliterating rival tribes?

      Live by the sword, die by the sword.

      >Caribbean
      Reading is an important skill

      • #138034
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >After seeing their destruction the Spanish handled and treated the mainland natives differently
        Isabella always defended a fair treatment of the natives. It was Columbus and his sailors who miss behaved and got judged for it, but this did not come from regret, but from an initial moral conviction.

      • #138039
        Anonymous
        Guest

        mexicano, stop with your lies. Nobody knows the real population of Mexico prior to the Spaniards and those graphs showing that 95% of the natives died are pure science fition.

        You haVe been brainwashed because of your low IQ

        • #138046
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >Caribbean
          Another illiterate manuel kek
          And as for Mexico, the population didn’t stop declining until the mid 17th century, and yes the native population did lose 90+% of its pre-contact size

          • #138048
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >and yes the native population did lose 90+% of its pre-contact size
            The claim from this is woke af on a projection woke af off some islands of the Caribbean. The 90% figure is a made up figure

            • #138050
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Accepted figures for pre-contact Mexico is 20-30 million, with the population reduced to <3 million by 1600.
              The carribean natives were entirely extincted

              • #138054
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >Accepted figures for pre-contact Mexico is 20-30 million,
                This is assuming the Inca and Aztec empires were the 3rd and 4th most populated empires in the world which is incredibly silly once you start looking at the cities they left behind.
                There is no consensus about the real number of inhabitants and it is all just speculations woke af on sources such as De Las Casas (who never really measured anything and just made up numbers to make a point)

              • #138055
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >Persian empire when it was almost 50% of the world’s population with more advance agricultural techniques
                30M people
                >Precolumbian population range according to academia
                8M-110M
                Academic research about the topic is incredibly bad, and honestly very hard to believe. To put the population of the Aztec empire to a similar level Achaemenid empire is probably the single dumbest thing that I have ever read.

              • #138061
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >pre-contact Mexico is 20-30 million
                that would be the entirety of north america, anon

                • #138064
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  That is still a crazy estimate. Forthe 30M number to be true you are estimating that modern day central Mexico+ the Yucatan peninsula had 21M people approximatly. This a population similar to the Achaemid empire and a population density much higher than the Roman empire at any given point in time.
                  You also have to take into account that some academic estimates claimed that
                  >The Caribbean had 5M people
                  >The Inca empire had a population of 17M people while
                  >The Mexican tribes were more populous than well developed empires with much higher agricultural outputs and infrastructure
                  The most realistic figures are between 8M-14M people in all of the Americas.

                  • #138070
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    That’s too low, I’d say something like 40-50 million is a good estimate that doesn’t require us to believe any given region had more people in 1492 than they did in 1900-1950 unlike the high count estimates.

                    • #138096
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      If you assume 45 million, then the population density of ALL of North America would be nearly 5 times higher than the 13 colonies in 1776. In the revolutionary war, British ships were always sighted. By comparison, sometimes it was weeks before natives were spotted. If you look at Mitochondrial DNA, and don’t assume that hunter gather moves to a new camp it’s another distinct settlement, then the count academics come up with is 2-3 million in 1500. The population only declined by 50% after the arrival of Columbus, and fully recovered by the mid 1800s.

                      • #138117
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        I’m talking about all of the Americas, not USA+Canada which would have had 2-5 million people

              • #138122
                Anonymous
                Guest

                ><3
                🙂

            • #138125
              Anonymous
              Guest

              That claim is woke af on census from coastal colonial cities in Peru and Mexico, why are you acting so irrational against the population estimates?

              • #138132
                Anonymous
                Guest

                The claim is just silly once you consider geography, the lack of domesticated animals, the use of very primitive tools and the lack of water ways. If the population clustered around Tenochtitlan was because they could transport woods and irrigate crops around the lake.
                To think that the Mexicas had a population larger than France+ Italy back then is just silly

                • #138135
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  Those tools allow you to work more terrain and sustain higher populations. Some estimates of Pre-Columbian America are crazy

        • #138047
          Anonymous
          Guest

          You will never have an ethnostate.

        • #138052
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >spanish intellectuals

      • #138112
        Anonymous
        Guest

        the Caribbean still had some pretty brutal societies, not the guy you were talking to.

    • #138043
      Anonymous
      Guest

      How could it have been saved?

      • #138044
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Avoid the Napoleonic Wars.

        • #138067
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Murder in the craddle at least TWO of the following:

          -Charles IV
          -Ferdinand VII
          -Godoy
          -Miranda

          • #138068
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Godoy was woke af and redpilled though

            • #138077
              Anonymous
              Guest

              he was scrotebrained and the only thing he did right was cucking Charles IV
              sadly he didn’t cuck him enough and Fernando VII came out as an even bigger scrotebrain than his father
              i wonder how the great charles III had such disgusting offspring

              • #138078
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >i wonder how the great charles III had such disgusting offspring
                Gabriel was, allegedly, the best son. A shame he was far from the succession.

              • #138102
                Anonymous
                Guest

                What you read about Godoy is mostly propaganda. This book is very good if you want to learn about his reforms and ideas

                >i wonder how the great charles III had such disgusting offspring
                Gabriel was, allegedly, the best son. A shame he was far from the succession.

                Gabriel and Antonio Pascual were smart, in fact Gabriel made some incredible paintings and was a musical prodigy. The idea of Aranda was that Gabriel should have become the king of Mexico and Antonio Pascual the king of Perú and La Plata. It would have been very interesting to say the least with the knowledge that we have now

                • #138103
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  The book btw

          • #138071
            Anonymous
            Guest

            I still think Napoleon was the main problem. scrotebrained kings and "liberators" had always been a thing since day one, yet the american colonies still existed.
            But with the napoleonic wars, the power vacuum created was filled by local upstarts that replaced the local authorities, and even some willingly switched to them, because they didn’t want to accept a Bonaparte as their king.

      • #138045
        Anonymous
        Guest

        The Brazilian way probably

        • #138080
          Anonymous
          Guest

          That was actually the plan for Mexico, but the king of Spain refused to leave.

    • #138063
      Anonymous
      Guest

      https://theconversation.com/from-paraguay-a-history-lesson-on-racial-equality-68655

      This article discusses how a Paraguayan dictator forbade intra-European marriages in the early XIXth century. Where there any similar attempts to deliberately foster the growth of mestizo populations in any other regions?

      • #138065
        Anonymous
        Guest

        The case of Paraguay was a bit extreme, in Mexico you had the idea of the "raza cósmica" which went in these direction. But I would say most Latin American governments went in the direction of making their countries more white in the XIX century rather than to homogenize the race through mixed race couples.

        • #138076
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Paraguay still has more European ancestry than Mexico as a whole, ultimately local demographics and scale of immigration still play a big role.

        • #138090
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >Raza cosmic
          >Cosmic race
          Shit always makes me chuckle

        • #138092
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >in Mexico you had the idea of the "raza cósmica" which went in these direction
          That’s mostly a meme. I mean, it was a real ideology pushed by José Vasconcelos, the education minister at the time, but he only was in the position for like 6 years. It had no effect effect in the population or the popular mindset.
          Paraguay was one of a kind. Francia was a dictator for like 30 years, and his regime was more or less similar to North Korea under the Kims. His word was law no matter the absurdity of it.

          • #138098
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >That’s mostly a meme.
            I know, but the concept of mestizaje being good popped in very few places (Cuba, some Mexicans and Paraguay)

            • #138113
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Brazil too kinda.

              • #138115
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Brazil was more of making blacks and native whites through race mixing rather than enhancing it to create a new race (basically breeding out none whites through extensive race mixing)

                • #138116
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  Wasn’t Brazil’s mixing policy specifically a desperation move to keep the Portuguese(and other Whites) there from getting massacred wholesale like the French in Haiti?

      • #138073
        Anonymous
        Guest
    • #138072
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Very nice thread, amazing that theres barely been any of the typical shit-flinging

    • #138079
      Anonymous
      Guest

      what country in modern day south america has the most history/historical landmarks. im visiting there soon and was thinking of going to chile but if theres a country with alot of history ill go visit

      • #138081
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Probably Peru.

        • #138083
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Bolivia is a contender, anon; Tiahuanaco

      • #138101
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Perú is the most monumenral in South America, but I would say Colombia’s colonial architecture is more colorful and unique. Peruvian and Bolivian architecture are more Barroque and in a way more European.

    • #138084
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Do you have any good recommendations for the Spanish in the American Southwest? I know most of the archives in Santa Ge got bonked after the pueblo revolt, but im looking for stuff about the early days of the Spanish out in the American Southwest. I’d take anything in general though if there is something particularly interesting.

    • #138085
      Anonymous
      Guest

      How many nukes do we need to fix them?

    • #138087
      Anonymous
      Guest

      What do you know/is your opinion of Ambrosio O’Higgins and how would you view his impact on Spanish America?

      • #138100
        Anonymous
        Guest

        O’Higgins was a relentless reformist like most of the Spanish administration at the time (reforms for the sake of reforming). His administration mostly focus on
        >Pacifying the frontier and integrate the Mapuches peacefully
        >End the Encomiendas that still existed (they were legally banned by the crown but in Chile a lot of people ignored the decree)
        >Create a strong and professional fishing industry to replace the small native fishermen and create a new industry
        >Expand mining
        >Distribute the population more evenly by creating cities in the north and south of Chile
        >Replace wheat production for sugar cane production to have higher yields (a very stupid plan)
        >Tax heavily sugar,tobacco,alcohol and Yerba Mate to finance infrastructure. He hated Yerba Mate because he believed it was the source of why Chile got decapitalized, as all the surplus from the agricultural exports to Perú went to Yerba.
        Overall he was very important for Chile as he believed it had the potential to be the richest domain in America (I don’t think he was that wrong on that) but when he became Viceroy of Perú he did very little as his reign was short, but I think some of his ideas were a bit off and very peculiar

        • #138105
          Anonymous
          Guest

          And what of his revolutionary son, Bernardo?

          • #138107
            Anonymous
            Guest

            I think he always had resentment against the crown because they did not allow his father to formalize his marriage with his mom. He was bold like his father, but he wasn’t an outstanding general or statesman, but he was a lot more competent (at least as a statesman) than Bolivar and he knew when his time had come. He also created the most stable regime of the bunch (it is not saying much but still)

            >Ask me anything
            Any good book recommendations(in English of course) for the De Soto expedition into the southeastern United States? Also what are your opinions on pic related? Is it good, or is there something better out there?

            Prescott is good, and a lot of the info he uses is directly from primary sources (Cortes’ letters and Breve historia).
            For De Soto, you have the chronicles which a translation in English
            https://www.amazon.es/Soto-Chronicles-Vol-Expedition-1539-1543-ebook/dp/B00FHU1RGE?asin=B00FHU1RGE&revisionId=c5024e64&format=1&depth=1
            The chronicles have primary sources, and then kind of narrative epic by Inca Garcilaso, which I guess is more colorful, but a lot less reliable. I think this is an interesting book.

    • #138088
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Describe the transition from pre conquest Andean culture to what it is today.

    • #138089
      Anonymous
      Guest

      How was Colonial Colombia in comparison to Peru or Mexico? Lacking a major civilization like the former two, how did Spanish Colonization progress in the area?

      • #138099
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >How was Colonial Colombia in comparison to Peru or Mexico?
        Colombia was an undeveloped colony until the XVIII century. The region was mostly compromised of population pockets that did not integrate economically until the mid XVIII century and its relevance before then was gold mining.
        Due isolation the colony developed its own manufacturing sector (it was modest as the population was very small) and labour specialization was low.
        The most important regions were the Caribbean (with an economy resembling that of Cuba) and the Andean regions were Spaniards settle due the cooler weather and the lack of tropical diseases (this region would experiment a population boom and colonize the rest of the country). The Magdalena river was the only real nexus between the interior and these Andean regions so the Canal del Dique became very important for Cartagena, and its decadence led to the rise of Barranquilla.
        In the XVIII century there was a strong integration of the economy and the subsidies from Quito allowed a better connection of the Andes with new regions, and interestingly enough the region with the largest economic growth was Los Llanos due a boom in livestock production due increase yields of grain and potatoes to feed them

    • #138091
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Why did Spain divide their colonies in the Americas into different regions (New Spain/Granada/Peru/Rio de la Plata). Is this the reason why their colonies split into so many different states afterwards?

      • #138094
        Anonymous
        Guest

        They had to, America was too big to be controlled by just one viceroyalty. And Spain was rather conservative in their divisions, Britain and France had more colonies in their domains even in smaller territories.

    • #138093
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Hi, two questions,
      Should the king of spain apologize as asked by the mexican president for the crimes during the conquest?
      Is it true that a Viceroy was killed for trying to protect natives from spanish abuse?

      • #138097
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >Should the king of spain apologize as asked by the mexican president for the crimes during the conquest?
        For the conquest the crown wasn’t very involved. If anything there are other historical moments in which you have a stronger case for the crown to apologize
        >Is it true that a Viceroy was killed for trying to protect natives from spanish abuse?
        The crown always sided with the natives in most disputes with the encomenderos. The thing is that the crown had authority in large cities and trade nodes so it didn’t have much authority in rural areas were natives lived (the church, caciques and hacenderos/encomenderos were the ones with authority here)

        Why did Spain divide their colonies in the Americas into different regions (New Spain/Granada/Peru/Rio de la Plata). Is this the reason why their colonies split into so many different states afterwards?

        They were vast territories and the Viceroyalties were mostly created to develop a region. Let’s study the 2 last Viceroyalties
        >New Granada
        The crown wanted to develop what is modern day Colombia so what they did was to create a very strong center of power in Santa Fe (current day Bogotá) and gave it Quito which was a very wealthy province of Perú (strong manufacturing sector and very wealthy mines) this way the crown could siphon funds from Quito to Colombia and develop the region.
        >La Plata
        The crown wanted to develop Buenos Aires and Montevideo to stop Portuguese expansion into the area, so the crown created a Viceroyalty centered around Buenos Aires who got transfered the revenues from Potosi which was the largest silver mine in South America.
        >Did this work
        Absolutly, as it decentralized power and allowed more regions to develop. In fact the crown in the late Spanish Empire went with another wave of decentralization through the Intendencias which developed regions like Paraguay
        >Did this create divisions when independence come?
        I wouldn’t say so. The 13 colonies were different governing colonies and they didn’t split in 13 different governments. It is mostly related to Geographical reasons (which created local cultures) and the way independence was done

      • #138128
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >Should the king of spain apologize as asked by the mexican president for the crimes during the conquest?
        I just don’t see the point. The current king is not even of the same royal dynasty from the former kings at the time of the conquest.

        • #138130
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Our president is a scrotebrain, he’s senile as fuck.

    • #138104
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Ask me anything
      Any good book recommendations(in English of course) for the De Soto expedition into the southeastern United States? Also what are your opinions on pic related? Is it good, or is there something better out there?

    • #138106
      Anonymous
      Guest

      How was slavery in Spanish America in comparison to Anglo America? What was the Catholic Church’s view on slavery?

      • #138108
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >How was slavery in Spanish America in comparison to Anglo America?
        It was more feudal and paternalistic while the Anglo American/ French was more capitalistic (Cuba later on would become a blend of the Anglo American and Spanish model).
        Slaves had a series of rights decreed by the local Audiencias. Most common rights were
        >Slaves could only work certain hours for you as they were expected to grow their own food
        >Slaves had to recieve a wage to eventually buy their freedom
        >Slaves couldn’t be mistreated (rape or violence) and if that was the case they were immidiatly freed
        The idea behind slavery is to get labor into the colonies and eventually integrate them into society by allowing them to buy their freedom.
        With regards with the church, the Spanish church was scholastic in nature and used Aristotle as the basis to justify slavery, so for the most part they did not complain about it until much later.

        • #138109
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >by allowing them to buy their freedom
          Did that ever happen though if yes how common was it?

          • #138110
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >Did that ever happen though if yes how common was it?
            Yes, it was very common. In Cuba half of the black population was free and the Americans when they bought Louisiana they were horrified about how many free black people the city had. The crown seeked slaves to eventually buy their freedom as they saw them as potential settlers as they wanted to restrict Spanish immigration (they thought that Spain needed more people and the immigration to America was hurting the economy of the country

    • #138126
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Were the Jesuits really up to some crazy shit there?

      • #138133
        Anonymous
        Guest

        The reality is that
        > The crown wanted easy money
        > The crown wanted to take over education
        >The crown was attempting a very deep administrative reform ( removing the native republics and expand the power of civil governors in the Intendencias)
        I would say they used the Motin of Esquilache as an excuse to pursue enlightened policies

Viewing 41 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.