Talk:Spanish colonization of the Americas
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spanish colonization of the Americas article.|
|Spanish colonization of the Americas has been listed as a level-4 vital article in History. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as Start-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Sign Your Edits Please
- 2 Colonization or conquest?
- 3 Removal
- 4 Sections
- 5 Removal of paragraph
- 6 Further removals
- 7 Encomiendas
- 8 'Effect on Natives' pro-Spanish bias
- 9 The Portuguese Empire
- 10 "Clean-up" header still needed?
- 11 There's no such "Americas"
- 12 Needs finishing touches, Citations
- 13 No neutral article.
- 14 colonization, conquest, ideology
- 15 Albrech's image
- 16 "Columbus conquers Hispaniola" passage
- 17 More black legend and Anglo propaganda
- 18 This is a terrible page
- 19 Recent change in summary
- 20 South-east United States and even further north
- 21 What does "bum of the people" mean?
- 22 INFOBOX
- 23 Myth, propaganda, lies and reality.
- 24 spanisha colonization
- 25 Issue with 'Cultural Impact' section?
Sign Your Edits Please
Could we please start following Wikipedia policy and sign our posts on this talk page? All it takes is putting four tildes at the end of your post. Particularly with a controversial topic like this, editors need to take responsibility for their words, and that needs something more personal than just an IP address. I've seen quite a few talk pages, and have never seen one as bad at this page for unsigned posts. Thanks.Darkstar8799 (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Colonization or conquest?
This article needs to be very, very careful. The Spanish never really colonized the new world, but conquered it. Although much of Central and South America speaks Spanish, these people are not from Spain, but are ancestors of Native Americans. Very few Spanish came to the new world, and most of those who did came as governors and left a generation or two later. The idea of Spanish colonists coming to America to settle needs to be tempered in this article, if not completely removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk)
This is not true at all. The Spanish conquest caused huges losses to the native population due to disease and enslavement. Because cite your sources for the statement that "very few Spanish" came to the New World. A very large percentage of Latin Americans, if not the majority are "Mestizos" mixed race people of Spanish and Native Indigenous origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the guy above me. But there ARE people who have Spanish ancestry living in Central, South America, even Mexico. Hint hint they are called Criollos. Look it up. Oh and by the way I have parents who hail from Ecuador and they have Spanish Ancestry.
FYI, there are some good works on demographics for Spanish America. In general, individuals of Spanish descent represented between 10-20% of the colonial population, depending on region, urban/rural, etc. By the late 16th c. onward Indigenous people tended to account for 55-65% of the population, again varying over time and space. The remaining 25-35% would have been made up of African slaves and individuals of mixed African-indigenous-European descent. Slave ownership tended to decrease in most parts of Spanish America post-1640 (Cuba post-1770s being the major exception). Spaniards did immigrate, even by the late 16th c., many Spaniards and their families resident in the Americas claimed to be "antiguos pobladores." Spain did attempt some direct colonization after conquests. Puebla de los Angeles in Mexico was originally founded and intended to be a Spanish town settled by average Spanish labradores. What is true about the top statement is that many Spaniards never intended to STAY, nonetheless, the cost of travel and the difficulties involved led many Spanish settle permanently after arrival.
All of the below works discuss to some degree the demographics and racial profile of Spanish settlement in Mexico:
Aguirre Beltrán, Gonzalo. La Población Negra De México: Estudio Etnohistórico. Colección Fuentes Para La Historia Del Agrarismo En México. México: SRA-CEHAM, 1981.
Cope, R. Douglas. The Limits of Racial Domination: Plebeian Society in Colonial Mexico City, 1660-1720. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1994.
Martin, Cheryl English. Rural Society in Colonial Morelos. 1st ed. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1985.
Palmer, Colin A. Slaves of the White God: Blacks in Mexico, 1570-1650. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976.
Restall, Matthew. Beyond Black and Red: African-Native Relations in Colonial Latin America. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2005.
Seed, Patricia. "The Social Dimensions of Race: Mexico City 1753." Hispanic American Historical Review 62.4 (1982): 569-606. Airflorida 08:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear all! Definition of colonization at this same Wikipedia is: 1) Colonization, (or Colonisation in British English), occurs whenever any one or more species populate an area. 2) Human colonization is a narrower category than the related concept of colonialism, because whereas colonization refers of settler colonies, trading posts, and plantations, colonialism deals with this and the ruling of new territories' existing peoples.
In practice a significant list of countries in America were first conquered (subjugated), including Hispaniola, Cuba, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Peru, Colombia, Chile (partly), New Mexico. In some areas due to Spaniards being few, and indians many (Guatemala, Yucatan, Honduras) conquista was quite a lengthy process, lasting for decades. Conquista at this stage had preciously little to do with settler colonies, trading posts, and plantations. It usually involved raids for gold, slaves, and punishing the resisting indians. Some areas had conquistador expeditions first (Florida in Spanish broad meaning of the word, New Mexico, Amazonia), but no conquest or settlement for quite some time. Panama is another example, where original "settlements" of Darien and Acla were mere raiding posts, and were abandoned as soon as country was robbed of its gold.
More intensive Spanish settlement usually followed successful conquest, in case there were encomiendas with already conquered indians available in the area.
Less numerous areas were settled without initial full conquest (or conquest going hand in hand with settlement). Here I would think of Paraguay, Uruguay, maybe Argentina. Those areas were not good for conquest, and except Paraguay were settled lately.
Therefore I would suggest broadly splitting the Spanish history into 1) Exploration and conquest (usually inseparable, as after Columbus voyages exploration was usally done with the purpose of finding the lands worthy of conquest). 2) Colonial rule (not colonization) discussing here not only Spanish migration to America, but also their administration over conquered people, as well as any Afro-american colonization happening against the will of enslaved black people.
E.g. in Hispaniola settlement started in 1492, but did not prove to be efficient Isabella being abandoned in 1498. Conquest effectively started around 1495 and finished in 1503 with elimination of Xaragua and Higuey chiefdoms. Colonial rule lasted until Haiti overrun Spanish part of Hispaniola. In Peru exploration lasted till 1533, then there was conquest in 1533-1536 ending with the conquest of Collao and reduction of Inca Manco's holdings to Vilcabamba, followed by Civil Wars (between conquistadors) lasting untill Gasca's expedition. We can talk of Colonial Rule only after Gasca eliminated Pisarro's in Peru. Area of Vilcabamba had longer story of conquest due to small Inca state surviving there intill 1570s.
- However, Spain was the first European colonial power to pass laws protecting the natives of its American colonies as early as 1542 with the Laws of the Indies . The Laws of the Indies consisted of many regulations on the encomienda system, including its prohibition of the enslavement of the Indians and provisions for the gradual abolition of the encomienda system. It prohibited the sending of indigenous people to work in the mines unless it was absolutely necessary, and required that they be taxed fairly and treated well. It ordered public officials or clergy with encomienda grants to return them immediately to the Crown, and stated that encomienda grants would not be hereditarily passed on, but would be canceled at the death of the individual encomenderos. - - The Spaniards were committed to converting their American subjects to Christianity, often by force, and were quick to purge any native cultural practices that hindered this end. However, most initial attempts at this were only partially successful, as Native American groups simply blended Catholicism with their traditional beliefs. On the other hand, the Spaniards did not impose their language to the degree they did their religion, and the Roman Catholic Church's evangelization in Quichua, Nahuatl and Guarani actually contributed to the expansion of these American languages, equipping them with writing systems. Many native artworks were considered pagan idols and destroyed by Spanish explorers. This included the many gold and silver sculptures found in the Americas, which were melted down before transport to Europe. - - In most areas, the Natives and the Spaniards interbred, forming a Mestizo class. These and the original Americans were often required to pay taxes to the Spanish government and were expected to obey Spanish law. In other areas, the Natives stayed ethnically distinct, and continued to resist intermingling for more than two centuries. Nowadays, descendants of Native Americans (mostly of mixed ancestry), constitute a major part of the population of the countries that comprised the Spanish Empire in America (with the exception of Argentina, Uruguay, Costa Rica and the countries of the Caribbean. Several Amerindian languages, like Quechua and Guaraní, have reached rank of co-official languages in some of the countries where they are spoken. - - The accounts of the behavior of Spanish conquistadors from both inside and out were part of the source material for the stereotype of Spanish cruelty that came to be known as the Black Legend spread mostly by Protestant foes, such as the Dutch and the British. As a result of this political propaganda campaign against the Spanish, little is known outside the Hispanic world about certain Spaniards, such as the priest Bartolomé de Las Casas, who defended Native Americans against the abuses of the conquistadores. In 1542, Bartolomé de las Casas published A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies (Brevísima relación de la destrucción de las Indias). His account is largely responsible for the passage of the new Spanish colonial laws known as the New Laws of 1542, which were used in an attempt to protect the rights of native inhabitants (the governor and men sent to enforce them were killed by rebellious conquistadores). These New Laws of 1542 established a very early - compared to British or French colonies - abolishment of native slavery (see the Valladolid debate).
These paragrgraphs have nothing to do with the spanish effects on heath section it was in. Gabrielzorz 17:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Obviously a disconnect as one jumps from the discovery of America to an obscure, if important battle on the Great Plains, but eventually needs to be all filled in. Filled in completely this promises to be a monster of an article and eventually will need to be divided into sections. For example a Caribbean section, A Mexico and North American Section, perhaps including Florida, etc. User:Fredbauder
Since I happen to be working with two books, one on the Rio Grande and one on the Yucatan I'll see if I can put a summary here and detailed info into New Mexico, Texas and Yucatan articles and see how it goes. User:Fredbauder
Removal of paragraph
I removed this paragraph:
Nowadays, the descendants of the native Americans constitute the base of the population of the countries that long ago comprised of the Spanish Empire in America, excepting Argentina, Uruguay and the Caribbean ones. Two of the Amerindian languages, Quechua and the Guarani have reached rank of co-officials in Latin American countries. There was Latin American President from Indian origen, as Benito Júarez, in Mexico or Alejandro Toledo, in Peru.
It doesn't speak to the subject of the article. The first sentence could be usable but it would be better to list the countries where it is true, since the article does not yet mention all the countries which were once part of the Spanish empire. Rmhermen 18:49 May 12, 2003 (UTC)
- They did these things to 'civilize' the Amerindians. The Amerindians used quipu and adored many gods. The Crown felt that without a phonetic writing system, set religion, and steady economy, the Amerindians were mere savages. They imposed Catholic religion on the Amerindians to begin 'civilized living'.
It is redundant and I am not certain it is exact.
- Their idols were ruined by inspectors and their goods were traded to Europe, for the Amerindian signature design of geometrical designs were much different from the realistic figurative art of European countries.
I'd remove this as well -- Error 02:17, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Encomiendas were not tracts of land as the article suggests. They were instead grants of forced native labor, which could be used on different tracts of land and for other purposes in constructing the colonial insfrastructure. Unless I overlooked this, there is no mention of Hispanicized blacks (free and enslaved) who took part in all phases of "Spanish" colonization of the Americas, who were part of the Spanish world well before 1530 (well before the reconquest in fact)---this is not new information among scholars of colonial Latin American history. Finally, the sources listed are sparse and outdated. The article is a good start, but still needs much, much more work. Kemet 28 March 2006
'Effect on Natives' pro-Spanish bias
- "However, Spain was the first European colonial power to pass laws protecting the natives of its American colonies..."
Because they were the nicest colonial power, it seems to read. Of course, the reason the Spanish were the first to pass such laws is becaue they were the first to colonize -- in 1542, there was no real European presense in the New World except the Spanish! Further, to imply that the Encomienda system was beneficial to the natives is flatly incorrect.
The last two paragraphs are the worst, though; I don't need to explain why, just take a look at them! The author doesn't describe Spanish treatment of natives, he tries to rationalize it, and to explain why the Spanish have an undeserved bad rep. Regardless of the accuracy, these items don't belong here, and they clearly reveal the bias of the author. --Xiaphias 04:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, yes. Spaniards have an undeserved bad reputation. Just take a look at the Black Legend article. Having said that and taking in account that what you've read is true, a colonial empire is still a colonial empire, with inequality, slavery, torture, death, mysery and this kind of stuff going on there... Just if later colonial powers had been better instead of plainly worse...
The Portuguese Empire
I think it's stupid to include an anachronistic map showing Portuguese possessions as being part of "pretense" Spanish overseas territories.... Spain never really controlled Brazil, even under Phillipine rule in portugal, Portuguese colonies were still under Portuguese rule. Besides most of the land that comes in pink wasn't even settled in the 16th/17th century it was much later that it was settled and conquered to Portugal and recognised by Spain in the Treaty of Madrid in 1750. --188.8.131.52 13:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- the most interesting of it, is not including the Guianas. eheh. --Pedro (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
"Clean-up" header still needed?
A substantial amount of work appears to have been done on this article since April 2006, when "clean-up" header was posted. Does it still need this header? While there is still work, the article appears as good as most WPedia articles. Is it time to remove the "clean-up" header? NorCalHistory 18:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, I concur with the removal of the clean-up header. NorCalHistory 23:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Seocnded. errr, thirded? 184.108.40.206 20:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
There's no such "Americas"
Concerning the use of the term "Americas" There's no such Americas. America is the whole Continent. The usage of the term America to refer to the United States is wrong, imperialist and it leaves behind the other countries with a vast richer culture. This article should be called "Spanish colonization of America" and so the contents should be changed in this sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertico (talk • contribs)
- Regardless of whether the term "America" should be used to refer to the United States or not, I think you are interpreting the phrase "the Americas" in a different sense than the one that is most commonly used. Your interpretation takes "the Americas" to mean "two Americas - the United States and the rest of the continent". The sense that I think is most commonly understood is "two Americas - North America and South America". If you use this sense of the phrase "the Americas", then there is nothing objectionable about it. --Richard 07:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Don't forget Central America!--Lord Kinbote 14:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Needs finishing touches, Citations
I cleaned up the page a bit. Broke a line after the Spanish Colonization table, and switched the European Colonization article to a link at the See Also section. It's a lot cleaner now but it seems to be missing something... Maybe another picture, or an into paragraph? -Rich
No neutral article.
Compare this article with the british colonization article or any other about the european colonization.
This could be the most biased artical on wikipedia. "While native culture was marred by Spanish proselytization..." or "and the cruelty and exploitation of native labourers and imported African slaves is undeniable, regardless of the putatively noble intentions and efforts of the Spanish crown and elements of the Catholic Church" this artical is extreamely anti-catholic. It clearly violates the neutrality policy.
- Well, to be fair, Spanish occupation was far more brutal that that of the other two European powers. France and England desired colonization; Spain desired conquest. --220.127.116.11 13:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
== In the Composer's Defense. The composer of this "biased" article was merely stating the facts. The Roman Catholic church was, as a whole, quite brutal in its imposition of an alien faith on the indigenous peoples of Mesoamerica and in South America. One has only to review the Spanish post-conquest codices to find evidence of the barbarity of the friars, and their exportation of the Holy Inquisition to the shores of the New World in the name of their god. To state that this article violates the neutrality policy is to ignore the very testimony of Spanish friars themselves. RCP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
In the Composer's Defence: In researching an essay on this very topic, it is hard to ignore that there are two very different points of view in research. If anyone has come accross Bartolome de las Casas' "A short account of the Destruction of the Indies", it will be noticed that there is a very strong Anti-Catholic bias in this account. As very little written evidence exists, the only evidence either comes from Spanish missions, thus a rosey picture of the conquest is painted, or those Westerners who saw it as brutal, thus a brutal picture is painted. Since the Inca, Mayans and Aztecs were largely illiterate, there is very little in terms of written records to know exactly what happened.
colonization, conquest, ideology
Notions of conquest and colonization do not have to be mutually exclusive. It will be important to define what these terms mean when used in this article. Generally, conquests tend to be historical phenomena with a major millitary dimension of shorter duration than projects of colonization. From a historian's point of view, the ethnic identities of today's inhabitants of these lands are not necessarily useful as testimony to specific instances of both conquest and colonization as they occurred in history. Complex and particular historical questions cannot be evaluated by a single conclusion about the effects of a 500-year span of history. To be sure, different interpretations and historical models of conquest and/or colonization would result when considering 16th-century Yucatan, 17th-century Potosí, or 18th-century Baja California.
Moreover, it is very difficult to to postulate uniform and unified attitudes and policies of large institutions, like the church or the state. The church was divided systemically both horizontally (holy orders, administrative departments, etc.) and vertically (hierarchy of priests, bishops, archbishops, etc.). For example, holy orders competed with each other in the Americas. Clergy exhibited different attitudes toward native peoples. That is not to say that brutality and oppression were absent. However, generalizations that cover so much intellectual territory can never be completely categorical without cheapening the complexity and nuance of history.
I believe bias in some sections of this article reflects important ideological world views of recent times, and they should be removed. However, I suggest that a section be added on how notions of the Spanish conquest (or Spanish colonization) are used in modern times to support of different ideologies (such as Che Guevara's "mestizo culture" or liberation theology). 22.214.171.124 06:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget that england also desired to establish trade and slavery here too!
Gabrielzorz 17:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there any reason Albrecht's Spanish colonization of the Americas image isn't being used in this article? The table of colors is quite large, but would make for a nice table. —Viriditas | Talk 21:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- This map is POV - it implies that the Portuguese Empire was part of the Spanish Empire. That was never the case, even if there was a period between 1580 and 1640 that both countries and empires had the same kings, in a Personal Union of the crowns in the period called of the Iberian Union. If maps of the Spanish Empire continue to push this POV, then maps of the Portuguese Empire will begin to push the opposite POV - that the Spanish Empire was part of the Portuguese one in those 60 years! The Ogre 14:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I think this map represents an unrealistic view of what the Spanish Empire was, as do most maps. Today the maps showing Empires all seem to have very clear, colorful boundaries. Maps are extremely important for conceptualizing what is happening in the world in specific time periods, and most of them paint an unreal portrayal of what was going on. By just showing a map of portions of the continent being shaded a different color we get no background information. This is simply an easy way to show the Extent of an Empires legal authority and not explaining any of it. To really get a good Idea of what the Spanish Empire was like there would need to be a population chart as well as a trade routes and areas of influence. In an article on Portugal they had a map detailing the various trade routes as well as the influence that Portugal had on the areas that were within its Empire. I think that a map like this would be much better for this article. Voitik2 (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
"Columbus conquers Hispaniola" passage
The whole section is remarkably poor. Bias probably could be tuned down and the quotation marks floating around could all be eliminated.
126.96.36.199 02:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
More black legend and Anglo propaganda
Is very interesting because it shows how the populations under the Spanish empire have survived to this day in the majority, mixed or otherwise. The Anglo model has been sadly much more different. Where are these native populations in North America and what per centage of the present population do they represent? Because they happen to be the majority in Latin America.
But then read this article and then this one:
This is a shame for Wiki, a place of propaganda and big lies. Where is the intelligence of the people behind these articles. Why is Mexico full of people of Amerindian ancestry and the US and Canada so empty of the same people. Where did the real genocide take place. I am not going to change anything, but someone should. This is a great example of the nature of the people behind these lines, mainly ignorant Americans who are among the worst genocidal peoples on earth (built their nation upon the anihilation of the Native American peoples) and love ignorance or propaganda. But people are believing you less and less. Anyone can see what I mean in the two articles and in this discussion page. These Americans who had a South Africa like society until the very 1970s. What a bunch of genocidal liars. Jan.
Maunus has deleted these comments and the link to the article. Is there anything that is not true. Is it not about time that reality is decribed the way it should. Again, just read this article, and then the English colonization one, for a comparison. Who do they want to cheat. People are not that stupid anymore. Take a look at the English or North European model of colonization in America, Australia, South Africa, and then at the Iberian or Spanish one and then again read the articles that I have mentioned, and the Spanish one is far from good but in comparison a wonder from heaven. This degree of progaganda is intolerable. Northern Europeans and North Americans have been getting away with it for centuries, but people are not that stupid anymore. This article should be deleted or written again, if objetive criteria are to be taken into account. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Something could certainly be said on the Spanish approach to the indigenous people, but the reason Mexico still has a high proportion of indigenous people compared to America is that before European conquest the indigenous population in Mexico was far higher than anywhere to the north--with cities and complex societies that dwarfed anything northwards. Mexico was the demographic and cultural center of indigenous North America. Compare--Spain also colonized and ruled Texas for a long time. The indigenous population within Spanish ruled Texas was next to zero by the time of the Texas Revolution. A better case might be made for California or Florida, and something could certainly be said on the basic approach indigenous peoples by the Spanish vs the British, French, etc. Still, the notion that the present-day proportion of people of indigenous ancestry in Mexico means the Spanish were nicer is flawed. Demographics is much more important. Mexico was able to sustain epidemics with mortality rates of 95% repeatedly and still have a relatively large population. Pfly (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it's weird how there were no amerindians north of Mexico, isn't it? And they knew that Texas, Florida, California, New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona and Nevada eventually would fell into U.S. hands, so they just stood south of El Paso to prove your point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
This is a terrible page
- This is a terrible page. It needs much more information to cover the enormous expanse of Spanish colonization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps more a difficult article, with a wide scope of 'terrible' to 'amazing' events. Seemed a bit high on chopiness and low in npov (what a slippery slope of values that is...). So effort was to be respectfully bold--just another step on its path. Per above "needs more info": being big already, maybe that's for new articles taking off from it? "lets talk"---Look2See1 (talk) 09:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- The whole page needs to be resstructured, I propose to focus on the movement of people and largely leave politics and economics for the article Spanish Empire. A Good start point would be to have the following sections:
- First immigrans
- Initial colonization currents
- La Plata
- Late colonial immigrants
- Late areas of colonization
- Falklands Islands
- Southern Chile
Recent change in summary
Hi. The Spanish cavalry and their forces were very tenacious, but common sense dictates that the "Conquerors" of America were the native inhabitants. There were almost a million native auxiliaries fighting the civil war. Without these forces, the Spanish simply could have not colonized America without the whole of the European continent. The real catalyst for the fall of the great Empires were the Muslim cannons they used. In coherence to that fact, their sloops or brigs (boats) were their real weapons.
1) Copper spears in closed ranks could effectively stop and dismount cavalry. To be successful, volleys of cannon fire or musket fire would be needed. To advance costs casualties---to effectively do this without the attrition factor against repetative guerilla tactics, multitudes of Indian auxiliaries would be needed for skirmishing.
2) Atlatls could penetrate chain mail at short ranges and steel armor if the spear is used as a long range weapon---gaining massive momentum from the pendulum-type swaying of the flexible spear.
3) The Mapuche learned to wrought iron and use horses and cannons effectively. Their use of horses to simply move infantry allowed the implementation of the local, over total superiority which, in turn, allowed them to cause some 90,000 native and Spanish deaths---along with countless civilians from both sides. In fact, they were one of the most effective wagers of war who ever lived... Ex: They had these guys called "Clown soldiers" who were used to simply to lure fire to cost the Spanish $$$. I forget said, "These Indians are in the habit of doing clownish things: throwing themselves to the ground, dancing, advancing---suddenly retreating." They had special soldiers who had hooks on their spears to carry away dismounted knights. Francisco Nunez (the happy captive) reported that the massive Mapuche clubs could "fell a horse".
4) Slings, which used very dense lead-type stones, could crush a steel helmet and break a sword in half from 50 feet away.
5) Bronze, stone, or copper maces were used very effectively against Caballeros (knights).
6) In the Amazon, the warriors would often lure them into the swamps and ambush their barges after pouring blood in the vicinity (crocs).
7) The Zacoteca long bows were extremely effective. They could produce tremendous velocity because they used their feet as the left arm and their arms as the right arm. I don't know if they could could penetrate steel, though.
8) Even with the natives, they lost against the Chichimecas.
9) Wave after wave of Spaniards were killed in trying to subdue the Maya. Only after they recieved help from the Xiu Maya (some 40,000) did they manage to subdue the Chichen Itza.
10) Cinnabar covered darts or "dust-bombs" could easily poison any soldier causing massive distortians in the senses before hand---eventually killing them.
11) Hornets could cause a massive delay in time and morale if they're exposed to crossing a hornet-covered bridge (not fatal).
South-east United States and even further north
The article omits any mention of Florida or parts further north. A colony, Pensacola was founded and abandoned. St. Augustine, Florida the first continuously-settled European colony in the future United States was founded. Several landfalls, territorial claims, and attempts at colonization were made (cf. Lucas Vázquez de Ayllón). In fact, the entirety of North America was considered by Spain to be Spanish by virtue of the Treaty of Tordesillas until a intervention by King Francis I of France in 1533. Of course, at this time there was still some doubt if these lands were part of Asia or a new continent. Does an expansion of this information belong in this article, some other article, or should it be a new article? patsw (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Some relevant articles that come to mind, on the northern areas of Spanish colonization: Spanish Florida, Spanish Texas, Santa Fe de Nuevo México, Alta California, Commandancy General of the Provincias Internas... and certainly others. Of course the page could be expanded with more info on areas to the south as well. Pfly (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
What does "bum of the people" mean?
I was tempted to remove it, but would hate to impose my ignorance on others. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable will make some of the fixes mentioned in this discussion page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Myth, propaganda, lies and reality.
The cruel Spanish were supposed to have anihilated the native peoples of the Americas. In fact, according to modern science, and according to anyone with a brain who knows Spain and the Americas, the population of the Americas ruled by the Spanish are still mainly of Native American stock:
Iterestingly, Native Amerindians were indeed virtually anihilated in the North ruled by the English and the "Americans". Their bunch of lies and cheap propaganda is being increasingly cornered. Koon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 11:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk)
There has been a revolution in archaeological, genetic and historical knowledge since the pioneering work done by Sherburne F. Cook nearly half a century ago. It would be nice if that hard won knowledge was referred to in this article in a matter of fact, disinterested, encyclopaedic manner.Provocateur (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC) PHAIL
Yeas, some Hispanic Americans are now beginning to discover that the majority of them actually descends from Amerindians or Native Americans, whatever you prefer. Where is the English-American equivalent. See: http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/09/30/latino.native.american/index.html?hpt=hp_bn2
From there I cut and pasted this:
But Maynard had long been taught that Taíno Indians, the indigenous people of Puerto Rico, were "gone, dead and buried" for centuries, decimated by Spaniards who arrived on the island in the 16th century.
Four years ago, Maynard heard about the work of Dr. Juan Carlos Martinez Cruzado, a geneticist from the University of Puerto Rico. In an island-wide genetic study, he found that at least 61.1% of those surveyed had mitochondrial DNA of indigenous origin.
Yes, even the Native Americans in the US hae survived by the millions thnaks to Hispanic culture. Actually, Spanish New Mexicans, who thought themselves of almost exclusive Spanish ancestry, have 30-40 percent Native American ancestry on the maternal side. SEE this article that also found 1-5 per cent Jewish ancestry in this group/ Interesting. Again, where is the "Anglo" equivalent?
- You need to read a bit more of the historical sources and the demographic history of New Spain. Also you probably need to understand the difference between "existing as a people" and having some of your genes passed into Mestizo culture. And you should certainlky start reading something about the indigenous genocides perpetrated throughout Latin America just in the 19th and 20th century AFTER independence. Then you can come again with your white legend nonsense.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Issue with 'Cultural Impact' section?
Can anyone tell me if the last paragraph of this is supposed to be as it currently is? It seems like parts of it were chopped away, and some sort of juvenile attempt to be funny was dropped in the last sentence. This doesn't seem to have been recent, as I couldn't find a revision lacking the vandalism, so I think it's been overlooked up till now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)