Pixel said:I like how you assume I'm an Englishman*. I dunno why but any time I talk with Spaniards about this they assume I'm from the Isles, unless I'm speaking Spanish then they assume I'm Castilian (ugh, maybe even worse!). To give some context I'm a white American who just so happens (or happened) to be a hispanophile and got obsessed with Spanish history in my early teens. I even learned your inane language. Entonces si no entiende nada podemos continuar por mensaje privado. :^) The meme that I am a Mexican is a lot more fun, though, you can roll with that too.
edit2: * in hindsight probably because of my avatar
Whether that is or isn't foolish I don't really care to debate at the moment, nor is AMLO acting like a sane human being - but the whole point of my post is that it was not strictly a 20th-21st century thing to question imperialism. It's true as kurczak said that it was a small number of people, it's also true they framed it from a 16th century mindset, but they were a whole lot more progressive than any of their contemporaries and a lot of my own ancestors 200-300 years later.
Dan gets it. This is all I was trying to say, anything else is what you extrapolated. I don't think anyone should apologize for anything, but I do think we need to achieve a better understanding of history, especially something as tragic as the total destruction of pre-Columbian Americas' cultures and peoples. It's too late to fix the past, but we can at least strive to do better in the future, and the first step in that might involve not building oil pipelines on the Sioux' water source for example. Mexico is hardly any better when it comes to dealing with their indigenous population (a lot larger than ours) so maybe AMLO should look in his own country first before Spain. : )DanAngleland said:
But that being said ...
To clarify, oh yes, my ancestors were **** people. Massacres, genocides, reeducation camps, unprovoked wars of conquest followed by mass rape, infanticide and just plain cruelty. One thing that did not happen to my knowledge, however, was passing out smallpox blankets. Having looked into this matter before, the only evidence we have of that is a handful of letters exchanged during the Seven Years' war, which certainly show intent to trade smallpox-infested blankets but I'm pretty sure we have no physical evidence that they actually carried out this intent. Still **** to think about doing it though. Regardless, almost without exception my people have gone around talking about just how goddamn civilized they are while they literally castrate Cheyenne children and decorate survivors with the remains and saying such lovely things as "Damn any man who sympathizes with Indians! ... I have come to kill Indians, and believe it is right and honorable to use any means under God's heaven to kill Indians. ... Kill and scalp all, big and little; nits make lice."
But that list up there, massacres, genocides, reeducation camps, etc. Spain was 100% guilty of all of that too. Yeah there were some charitable people who built hospitals, yeah there were some nice guys who wanted to show them the Gospel at least before massacring them, but Spain's legacy in the Americas is just as much an active campaign of genocide as the Anglos' was. I know la leyenda negra and all that stuff and while Spain does get treated unfairly by historiography, the main reason for this unfairness is not that Spain was a "little sister of charity" but because they were no worse than the Anglos.
Okay this is mostly unrelated and just a nitpick to give me an excuse to talk about Mesoamerica, one of my favorite things to talk about. There were many waves of Uto-Aztecan (the language family stretching from Shoshone and Hopi to Nahuatl and Pipil) migrations from Northern Mexico over many centuries and the Aztecs were just the most recent of those migrations. So at least in a lot of cases the Aztecs were just imposing their law on other migrants, not original inhabitants.
Another nitpick. Nahuatl speaker does not = Aztec. Nahuatl achieved a kind of lingua franca status in much of Mesoamerica, and indeed many of Mexico's Nahuatl place names come from the Tlaxcaltecs, not the Aztecs. Though that said, being allied with the Spanish was almost as bad as being their enemy, and there's only a few hundred people left alive that would be descended from the people who built the Tlaxcallan Republic, to my knowledge.but yes they should apologize for not wiping out Cortez' expedition while they had the **** chance
I see we're touching bone here as I sense a certain restlessness in your comment.
What the Hernán Cortés' men saw when they arrived in Mexico is similar, overcoming the distances, to the regime of blood and horror that the allies discover when they arrive in Nazi-occupied Europe. Surely you know the Great Tzompantli, so I have nothing more to add to that.
As a good connoisseur, you will also know about the existence of the "Las Leyes Nuevas de Indias", right? Never had a conquering kingdom or nation legislated in favor of the conquered natives and thus oversee and monitor the behavior of its own conquerors. The Spaniards not only protected the natives but also mixed with them. Spain was then an advance of the mixture and you only have to see how white and indigenous and white and black were mixed.
For example, the governor appointed by Cortés who had Mexico was called Andrés de Tapia Motelchiuh (1526-1530) and was an Aztec plebeian almost slave whom the obsolete Aztec social system would never have allowed to prosper and who accompanied Cortés for three years in his expeditions. But we could also name another plebeian, Don Pablo Xochiquenzin, who was also governor for five years. Or Don Diego de Alvarado Huanitzin, who accompanied Cortés on the expedition to Honduras and was named governor of Ecatepec, a position he held for 14 years. Then Viceroy Antonio de Mendoza appointed him governor of Tenochtitlán. Or Don Diego de San Francisco Tehuetzquititzin or Don Alonso Tezcatl Popocatzin, or Don Pedro Xiconocatzin. Should we continue? All Indians, all rulers of the viceroyalty of New Spain.
Equal kingdoms, no colonies.
First was Cristobal Colón and then Fray Junípero. The dictatorship of the politically correct wants to rewrite history and the indigenous current of the United States wants to erase the Latin and Catholic heritage with the excuse of genocide. But the legacy of the Anglo-Saxon Protestants is untouchable, isn't it? Why does part of the Mexican intelligentsia keep talking about Spanish genocide? Because they don't want to see reality. And the reality is only 10% of the Mexican population is white, another 60% is mestizo and 30% is indigenous. Now compare these proportions with that of the U.S. and Canada.
It will be because of hidden interests? because the politicians of emancipation first and of revolution later needed to look for an external enemy in order to justify themselves. Don't forget that emancipation was a brutal economic involution. New Spain was the center of the Spanish empire, the richest area... and 19th century dictators and revolutionary leaders led it to underdevelopment. And then they manipulated history and blamed us Spaniards.
Recapitulating. I don't want to curl the curl but I want to reaffirm my initial comment; I Terco_Viejo waving the flag of freedom of expression I reaffirm myself and maintain that the president of Mexico is a brave moron who has thrown this smoke bomb to divert attention from the real problems of his country. What's your point? What am I totally wrong thinking as a Spanish oppressor of indigenous people? Perfect, think what you want.
We have reached a point where we will have to tolerate each other because as you know my inane language you will know the proverb it says: Dos no discuten si uno no quiere
And I'm not about to discuss any more... since neither of us will change the way of thinking of the other.
