Talk:Black Legend

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Religion / Interfaith (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Interfaith work group.
 
WikiProject Spain (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Discrimination (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Journalism (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Media (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.


Expert needed[edit]

The 'Black Legend' is for many historians the 'Black History', and calling it a legend is then a Spanish equivalent of negationism. Another bunch of historians brings apparently valid arguments about anti-Spanish propaganda.
Any country's history has been regarded from different angles and perceived through nationalistic as well as foreign eyes. There usually came a general understanding of what is fact or legend, without a WP article about the country's 'Black Legend'. Is Spain's history in particular after about 500 years then so different to serious historians?
I cannot be a judge of which "historians" are to be considered objective experts. And apparently few or none of the other contributors to the article or this talk page do better. Hence, I tagged the article "Expert attention needed", and dearly.
▲ SomeHuman 2011-08-02 12:58 (UTC)

ENVY BY OTHER EUROPEAN NATIONS, THE ENGLISH IN PARTICULAR FIRST AND THE ENGLISH SPEAKING AMERICANS SECOND, WERE AT THE HART OF THE LEGEND. AND IT LINGERS ON[edit]

CHARLES F. Lummis, in The Spanish pioneers and the California Mission stated ¨When you know that the greatest of English text- books has not even the name of the man who first sailed around the world (a Spaniard), nor of the man who discovered Brazil (a Spaniard), nor of him who discovered California (a Spaniard), nor of those Spaniards who first found and colonized in what is now the United States, and that it has a hundred other omissions as glaring, and a hundred histories as untrue as the omissions are inexcusable, you will understand that it is high time we should do better justice than did our fathers to a subject which should be of the first interest to all real Americans.¨

Little more needs to be said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.202.64 (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, except that that comment is ridiculous. Those items are clearly found in English language history textbooks. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Correction: "When you know that the greatest of English text- books has not even the name ( I think some of them have!) of the man who first sailed around the world (a Portuguese, who had also been in the Malay Archipelago and :Indonesia :before, in his periplo of travels around the world),nor of the man who discovered Brazil (a Portuguese -official- maybe two Spaniards before, futher north, also in the same year of 1500 and a Portuguese before, in 1498), nor of him who discovered California (a Portuguese at the sevice of Spain, if it is US California of course), nor of those Spaniards who first found and colonized in what is now the United States, and that it has a hundred other omissions as glaring, and a hundred histories as untrue as the omissions are inexcusable, you will understand that it is high time we should do better justice than did our fathers to a subject which should be of the first interest to all real Americans."¨
But there are yet many omissions indeed (maybe) about Spanish and Portuguese explorers. Regarding the Spanish control of great part of Western Hemisphere, and the Portuguese control most of the Eastern Hemisphere (and Brazil etc. in the Western Hemisphere) the Portuguese had more reason to complain of these omissions on the part of the Anglo-American literature, although currently the history begins to revive the memory of those explorers in British and American publications - and is now more complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.113.189.44 (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
What is your proposal for improving this article? The talkpage is for suggesting improvement not for simply airing one's grievances or stating opinion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Why should the Anglos aggrandize a competing group of invaders to these lands? For that matter, in modern texts, if they are to be mentioned, it would hardly counter Spain's bad rep, which was well-earned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.201.209.78 (talk) 04:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
The question is not about aggrandizing Spanish history or that of any other colonial power for that matter. The question is about being honest and objective. History should be nothing more and nothing less than that, objective. As for the "bad rep", perhaps it is the result of political propaganda like the Black Legend. Good point. Maybe we should quote you in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.98.51.34 (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

When I post stuff like the above admins leap to delete it and send me snarky messages about it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.81.8.174 (talk) 07:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

 :The above poster's claim that "ENVY BY OTHER EUROPEAN NATIONS, THE ENGLISH IN PARTICULAR FIRST AND THE ENGLISH SPEAKING AMERICANS SECOND, WERE AT THE HART OF THE LEGEND" is totally untrue.

16th century Spain was a very intolerant country. Having recently shaked off the last muslim bastion from the iberian peninsula in 1492, they later proceeded to force the remaining moors and jews to convert to Catholicism or have them expelled. Catholicism was now the one and only religion allowed in the country. Therefore when the protestant reformation occurred in northern Europe, the Spanish kingdom would not tolerate any local Spanish protestants and burnt them on the stake using the Spanish inquisition system (which was originally created to target muslims and jews). After spain gained control of the territory in present day Netherlands, they tried all they could to suppress the dutch protestants through torture and killing using the Spanish inquisition. This led to the Dutch Revolt and spain sent it armies to crush the revolt and many atrocities were committed by the Spaniards. Many Dutch fled to England and that is how the English population received the reports of Spanish bigotry and intolerance and cruelty. The Spanish armada in 1588 no doubt was targeted at the invasion of England and to impose the catholic religion to the populations. This is why the black legend was created. To what extent such a culture still exists today in Spanish speaking countries is debatable. --BrianJ34 (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

slashed by me because the [vast majority] of Spanish are now good people. --BrianJ34 (talk) 09:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

And that was different from other european countries at the time how exactly? --Ecelan (talk) 06:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I've changed my mind. The Spanish mindset started to change from the early 19th century onwards, probably due to the Napoleonic occupation of Spain. The Spanish are good people today. --BrianJ34 (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

overhaul needed, will[edit]

Some parts of this article are just (badly written) polemics. I am referring in particular to the bit about Henry the Eighth and the Star Chamber. There are many old (c. 2010) discussions here on the talk page but apparently the work wasn't finished. So I am going to make some bold edits here. Bazuz (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Please do.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I made a start. If you can help, it'd be great. Bazuz (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Last time i spent a good deal of time looking for sources, but I never really found one I thought was just perfect - i.e. an objective treatment of the phenomena and the historiographic debate, just scholars accusing eachother of promoting black and white legends. I'll take a look again. I do remember that "Rereading the Black legend" by Walter Mignolo and others seemed useful. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Do you have Kamen's books? I have read one of them (Road to Empire, which deals with other aspects) and think he is an objective scholar. But I haven't read his books that deal with the specific issues raised here. Bazuz (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't have those but thanks for bringing them to attention. I don't believe in objective scholars, but i think that even your ordinary biased scholars are able of giving fair and objective treatments if they really put their mind to it. But does he write much about historigraphy? The problem I've been running into is that Black legend is frequently mentioned in discussions of Spanish history, but that there are few actual meta-historical treatments. (His wikipedia article makes him sound kind of like a White legend historian) ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
This is a mighty change. You delete a reference by a scholar, one of the biggest experts in the Spanish Inquisition, to accommodate the (obviously slanted) opinion of an anonymous user? To see through the arguments of user Dread Pirate Wesley would be as easy as reading Wikipedia's Spanish Inquisition#Organisation: there were no tribunals in the Netherlands belonging to the Spanish Inquisition.
I'd suggest you read some books before editing this article. At least you should be able to distinguish between the Spanish Inquisition and the Medieval Inquisition.
Cheers. --Ecelan (talk) 12:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

OVERHAUL NEEDED BECAUSE OF WRONG APPROACH[edit]

The problem with this article is that it's full of original research. It should only be giving brief summaries, with citations, of what the major authors on the topic, Julián Juderías, Wayne Powell, etc, say about it and its "white" counterpart. Then the arguments on the talk page will not be about what happened in the Americas, the Netherlands, the Inquisiton, but is this article representing these writers well? Provocateur (talk)

Just in case it is of use, this is the on line article of the Encyclopedia Britannica:

Black Legend Article Free Pass

   Introduction
   Related
   Contributors & Bibliography

Black Legend, Spanish Leyenda Negra, term indicating an unfavourable image of Spain and Spaniards, accusing them of cruelty and intolerance, formerly prevalent in the works of many non-Spanish, and especially Protestant, historians. Primarily associated with criticism of 16th-century Spain and the anti-Protestant policies of King Philip II (reigned 1556–98), the term was popularized by the Spanish historian Julián Juderías in his book La Leyenda Negra (1914; “The Black Legend”).

   Images

The Black Legend remained particularly strong in the United States throughout the 19th century. It was kept alive by the Mexican War of 1846 and the subsequent need to deal with a Spanish-speaking but mixed-race population within its borders. The legend reached its peak during the Spanish-American War of 1898, when a new edition of Bartolomé de las Casas’s book on the destruction of the West Indies was published.

Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The Britannica's approach is to the point. The problem with this wikipedia article is that it is full of original research and synthesis; it should only be about what leading scholars say about it. The problematic part in this article is the long third section subtitled "Elements". This section is all made up by Wikipedians dipping into history and talking about the inquisition, the Dutch revolt, colonial history, the romantic writers etc. None of this comes from the Julian Judieras and the other scholars mentioned earlier. This is pure WP:OR and this is why the talk page is filled with disputes over historical facts when in fact this article should be about the "black legend" thesis, not the history Spain.Provocateur (talk) 10:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
In any case, you must always ask for references, you can't delete whatever you want. The bibliography in the article is large. You have read through it, and then we can start talking about original research and synthesis, or not. --LTblb (talk) 03:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Reversion[edit]

I reverted a series of edits by User:Fortis est veritas, because I found them to be non-neutral. The article needs to describe what the Black legend is (a way of referring to a tradition of Anti-Spanish historiography) without adopting either the white legend view (that the allegations against Spain were unjustified) or the Black legend view (that the allegations were justified). The description of what the legend is should be written objectively by presenting both sides, and by describing clearly who has made which arguments in the literature. The edits that I reverted where argumentative, focusing on describing specific allegations as injustified. This I think is the wrong approach. A better approach would be to describe who has made which allegations and who has argued against them. Were are not here to decide which tradition of historiography is correct or which claims or allegations are incorrect, but to represent the debate neutrally. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)