Talk:New Spain

The map for New Spain needs to include Costa Rica as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.235.153.105 (talk • contribs)

I´m not completely sure, but I think that Venezuela was also part of New Spain before the stablishment of the Viceroyalty of New Granada.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.178.80.22 (talk • contribs)

What about the Spaniards in the British Columbia and Alaska?

It is a fact that the Spaniards reached the British Columbia and Alaska, building forts and fighting with the Nootkas. It should be mentioned!

Check this, for example:

"El Virreinato de Nueva España fue el nombre dado por la administración pública colonial española a la región del continente americano comprendida por el actual México, más los actuales estados de California, Nevada, Colorado, Utah, Nuevo México, Arizona, Texas, Oregon, Washington y partes de Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Kansas, Oklahoma y Louisiana en los Estados Unidos de América. La parte suroeste de Columbia Británica en Canadá."

Or this, an official study from a history foundation of the autonomous government of Catalonia that explains the ventures of Catalan volunteers in Oregon and the British Columbia in the 18th century (it is in Catalan, but I guess it's easy to understand that "Els catalans a la Colúmbia Britànica al s.XVIII" means "The Catalans in the British Columbia in the 18th century").

And there are many more sources that can be provided.

All this stuff should be in the article. And in the map! I don't understand why the map does not even mark the British Columbia, and the part of Oregon is stated as "explored but never controlled", when in fact, there were forts with soldiers there, ruling the region. Obviously there weren't big colonies, but they were officially part of the Spanish Empire. Onofre Bouvila 18:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Bias & Uncited work

"Quite often, rape was a factor in the reproduction of mixed-race children." No citation.

"Unfortunately this trait has never quite disappeared." Obvious bias.

"most Afromexicans prefer to be considered mestizo, since they feel more identified with this group." No citation.

Several other portions have no mention of sources, either.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonas Salk (talk • contribs)

Confusing New Spain with Mexico

As the map clearly shows, New Spain was more than the country of Mexico. Besides including the American Southwest, it also included Central American countries such as Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Panama.

So... the problem is that, at the end of the article, the text starts to talk specifically about Mexico.

Mestizos and criollos were nevertheless not allowed in the upper levels of the government or any other position of power, and eventually they joined forces for the independence of Mexico. With independence, the caste system and slavery were theoretically abolished.

Mestizos, while they no longer have a separate legal status from other groups, comprise approximately 60–65% of the population. Whites, who no longer have a special legal status, are thought to be about 15–20% of the population and still have most of the desirable jobs. In modern Mexico, mestizo has became more a cultural term, since a Native American that abandons his traditional ways is considered a mestizo, also most Afromexicans prefer to be considered mestizo, since they feel more identified with this group.

There are a couple different ways to fix the problem...

1. Change the text to be more general and thus applicable to all of New Spain (could be difficult to do)
2. Create a section called "race relations in Mexico" (except this begs the question of why the sudden focus on Mexico)
3. Change the text to make it clear that we are just using Mexico as an example
4. Delete the above text from the article

--Richard 07:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be little research in the making of the article, and even in the commentaries. First of all, New Spain didn't contain all the territories named in the article: the viceroy had certain authority over Central America, the Caribbean islands and the Philippines, but they weren't attached to New Spain. Venezuela had a governor, and was more related to the Viceregal of Peru. A map showing New Spain's territory would have to shade only Mexico (without Chiapas), and U.S. Southwest. Then, there's no mistake if New Spain is confussed with Mexico, yet the article has a tremendous lack of information, and lies very much on the colonization subject.

In other topic, criollos were allowed in the upper levels of government, due to the fact that the Spanish Crown used to sell oficios along the entire 16th and 17th centuries, in a practice known as oficios vendibles y renunciables. Even if they couldn't occupy viceroy's office, they took numerous oidores positions. Mark A. Burkholder and Dewitt S. Chandler have a very reliable study on that subject.

--A.R.I. 03:08, 22 January 2007

map

The Map should have in dark green (part of the empire) Costa Rica, it is shaded down to Nicaragua, but Costa Rica was part of the empire as well.

map anachronstic?

Is the map really anachronistic? It seems to depict New Spain as it existed after the recovery of Florida in 1783 and before the sale of Louisiana in 1800 (or perhaps the signature of Pinckney's treaty in 1795 and the abandonment of claims to modern Mississippi and Alabama.) Should we perhaps indicate it as a map of New Spain in 1783? john k 01:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, except that it shows western Santo Domingo and Jamaica as part of the viceroyalty. It seems like it would be better to upload a new map that takes them out, and say it's a map of New Spain in 1783, at its greatest geographical extent, than to have a map that doesn't depict what New Spain looked like at any given time. john k 01:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Did just that, only I used the year 1789 to depict Fort San Miguel. As always, corrections are welcome. Albrecht (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

•Also about the map: it says in the article that Venezuela was a part of New Spain, but Venezuela is not shaded on the map. Dr bab 06:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Needs more work

This article puts too much of an emfasis on Mexico. What about all the other Latin American countries, icluding the Philipines. None this is even mentioned in this article. This article needs to expand to mention other Latin American countries, including the Philipines.

The Flag

The flag reported as the flag of New Spain is not so. This flag is known as "Cruz de Borgoña" (Cross of Burgundy), and, according to Santiago Dotor, from Flags of the World, was the Spanish military flag from the 16th century up to 1843, when the colours of the 1785 War Ensign were adopted for use on land too. So it may have been used in New Spain as well as in any other territory within the Spanish Empire as flag of the Army. Archael Tzaraath 14:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Bourbon Reforms

The Bourbon reforms section of this article doesn't really discuss anything specifically related to the Bourbon reforms and rather concentrates on political and military conflicts during the period. Attention should be given to changes in the civil leadership (particularly the appointment of peninsular spaniards instead of criollos in high positions) and the changes in culture that accompanied these reforms. I do not have particular expertise in this matter, otherwise I would have added these changes myself. 128.120.58.142 22:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Flags

Anselmocisneros 20:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

How can such a long article be a "stub"????—Cesar Tort 02:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

This article through and through is told from the perspective of the colonizers and minimizes the brutality against indigenous folks. Lists of conquistadores, dates, conquests, trade routes. Almost nothing about how they conquered, or what life was like for the conquered-- that is, most people who lived there. These topics are minimized and relegated to the "Criticism of the Spanish Presense", while they should be the main thrust of the article. Nlevitt 18:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I see a problem here. If all sort of Spanish brutalities are to be mentioned, the brighter side of the conquest would have to be mentioned as well: especially the termination of the omnipresent human sacrifices in pre-Columbian cultures, which included infanticide rituals not only in Mesoamerica but in the Inca region as well. —Cesar Tort 02:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

the "brighter side of the conquest"? Surely you're joking. --141.157.106.115 15:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No kidding. It was brighter for the kids who, after the conquest, escaped sacrifice by their parents. Take a look at this Discovery Channel article.[1] —Cesar Tort 18:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I propose either (1) to remove the pov tag, or (2) to mention briefly both: the atrocities committed by the conquistadors (e.g., those cited by Bartolomé de las Casas) and the atrocities committed by the Indians (e.g., those cited in the article Child sacrifice in pre-Columbian cultures). —Cesar Tort 21:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If no objections, I'll remove the tag by the weekend. —Cesar Tort 00:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna put the NPOV tag back up. Every culture has reprehensible customs, including the pre-Columbian cultures, and the Spanish. I have no problem with those being discussed, though it would be more appropriate to talk about them on their respective pages. But this article is about New Spain, which means it's about how Spain conquered, occupied, exploited and to a great extent destroyed the people of the Americas. Nlevitt 22:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Info from White American page

I'm cleaning up the white american page and removing material that isn't related to groups' perceived whiteness (which is what the article there is about). There was a history of Spanish exploration in the United States on that page. I'm pasting it here so it can be merged into this article if necessary. Calliopejen1 18:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Historic presence

See also: New Spain

The Hispanic presence in the United States is the second longest, after the Native American. Most Americans associate the early Spanish in this hemisphere with Hernán Cortés in Mexico and Francisco Pizarro in Peru, but Spaniards pioneered the present-day United States, too. The first confirmed landing in the continental U.S. was by a Spaniard, Juan Ponce de León, who landed in 1513 at a lush shore he christened La Florida.

An anachronous map showing areas of the United States and other territories pertaining to the Hispanic world at various times over a period exceeding 400 years.

   The Spanish colonial empire at its territorial height in 1790.

   Regions of influence (explored/claimed but never controlled or vice versa) or short-lived / disputed colonies.

   Portuguese possessions ruled jointly under the Spanish sovereign, 1580–1640.

   Territories lost at, or prior to, the 1714 Peace of Utrecht.

   Spanish Morocco and Spanish West Africa, 1884–1975.

Within three decades of Ponce de León's landing, the Spanish became the first Europeans to reach the Appalachian Mountains, the Mississippi River, the Grand Canyon and the Great Plains. Spanish ships sailed along the east coast, penetrating to present-day Bangor, Maine, and up the Pacific Coast as far as Oregon. From 1528 to 1536, four castaways from a Spanish expedition, including a black Moor, journeyed all the way from Florida to the Gulf of California.

In 1540, De Soto undertook an extensive exploration of the present U.S., and in the same year, Francisco Vázquez de Coronado led 2,000 Spaniards and Mexican Indians across today's Arizona-Mexico border and traveled as far as central Kansas.

Other Spanish explorers of the U.S. make up a long list that includes among others, Lucas Vásquez de Ayllón, Pánfilo de Narváez, Sebastián Vizcaíno, Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo, Gaspar de Portolà, Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca, Tristán de Luna y Arellano and Juan de Oñate. In all, Spaniards probed half of today's lower 48 states before the first English tried to colonize, at Roanoke Island.

The Spanish settled, creating the first permanent European settlement in the continental United States at St. Augustine, Florida, in 1565. Santa Fe, New Mexico, also predates Jamestown, Virginia, and Plymouth Colony. Later came Spanish settlements in San Antonio, Tucson, San Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco, to name just a few. The Spanish even established a Jesuit mission in Virginia's Chesapeake Bay 37 years before the founding of Jamestown in 1607.

Two iconic American stories have Spanish antecedents, too. Almost 80 years before John Smith's rescue by Pocahontas, a man by the name of Juan Ortiz told of his remarkably similar rescue from execution by an Indian girl. Spaniards also held a thanksgiving, 56 years before the Pilgrims, when they feasted near St. Augustine with Florida Indians, probably on stewed pork and garbanzo beans. As late as 1783, at the end of the American Revolutionary War, Spain held claim to roughly half of today's continental United States (in 1775, Spanish ships even reached Alaska).

From 1819 to 1848, the United States and its army increased the nation's area by roughly a third at Spanish and Mexican expense, including three of today's four most populous states: California, Texas and Florida. Hispanics became the first American citizens in the newly acquired Southwest territory and remained a majority in several states until the 20th century.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 05:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Map of the Viceroyalty of New Spain

The colour red illustrates the former territories of the Viceroyalty of New Spain, established between 1535 to 1821.

This is the correct map that best describes the former territories of the Viceroyalty of New Spain. If any users dispute the issue, please discuss it here before making any changes. Thank you! --Ramírez 06:20 am, December 6, 2007 (UTC)

The map is bad because it doesn't represent the territories of New Spain at any one time. The territories in North America are those it held between 1783 and 1803. But it also shows them holding Jamaica and Saint Domingue, which were lost in the seventeenth century. Maps should represent territory held at a given moment in history, or they are misleading. john k (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Can you please provide "references", "facts" or "citations" to support your claims or statements? Ramírez 19:19 pm December 8, 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Are you actually denying the truth of my factual claims? Jamaica was lost in 1655, Saint-Domingue (Haiti) by 1697, when the Spanish recognized the French conquest of the area. Louisiana was gained in 1763, but Florida was lost, and only regained in 1783. Louisiana was ceded to France by treaty in 1800, and actually turned over in 1803. Therefore, in North America, the map represents Spanish territories between 1783 and 1803. In the Caribbean, it shows Spanish territories before 1655. Any historical source you care to look at will support this rendition of the facts. Are you denying that Jamaica was lost in 1655, or denying that Louisiana was only gained in 1763, and that Florida was not held by Spain between 1763 and 1783? This is all matter of basic historical fact. What are you getting at here? john k (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, there! I'am not denying anything, and I just want to know if you have the references or citations to support your statements that's all. I'm not a historian, so I'm relying on your professional qualifications and knowledge to inform the public. We need references, so we can have a look at it and examine it. The establishment of the Viceroyalty of New Spain started from 1535 to 1821. It should outline "all" the territories gain and lost of the viceroyalties conquered lands. New Spain's former territories also included the nations of the Philippines Islands, Guam, Mariana Islands, Caroline Islands etc. Why aren't these nations included in the article's map?. - Ramírez December 9, 19:37 (UTC)

Here we disagree - I don't think historical maps should be anachronistic, unless, at the very least, they're clearly labelled as such. I agree that the Philippines should probably be included, if possible. An ideal map would be like the one you have, but not showing Jamaica and Haiti as part of Spain. john k (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Placing the Viceroyalty on an uncropped world map strikes me as a bit overzealous; in fact, it's almost redundant considering our little cottage industry turning out piles and piles of Spanish Imperial maps. Neither am I convinced of the need to show the Philippines and the Antilles, for the same reason that the creators of (say) Image:LocationVichyFrance.png didn't feel compelled to show Madagascar or Gabon. Surely maps will suffice at Spanish East Indies and Spanish West Indies. And Ramirez, please limit your demand for citations to questions that warrant it. While your contributions are obviously welcome, I find I'm forced to wonder: on what grounds did you decide what the illustration should or should not depict if, by your own admission, you are unfamiliar with the dates, events, and documents governing the boundaries of Spanish colonial America? Albrecht (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, there, User:Albrect, Yes, but we are not talking about Madagascar, Gabon or France. This debate issue is about the former territories of the Viceroylaty of New Spain and the need to outlined the lands were gained and loses of the Empire, since it's establishment in 1535, in order to provide the reader a clear information. So far, in my opinion, the article is incomplete and it remains abit vague. And also, it is my job as a wikipatroler to help out and improved or provide articles with factual informations. Here are some of the references I have found to support my issue on the Philippines Islands. The Philippine Islands were placed under the jurisdiction of New Spain which was first established in 1565 and it remained as a territory for 256 years up until 1821. Therefore the archipelago was a part of the territory of the Viceroyalty of New Spain [2] --Ramírez 03:29 am December 10, 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ramirez. No one doubts that the Philippine islands were administratively part of the Viceroyalty, but I think the clarity gained by depicting the full extent of all territories polysynchronously (is that the word?) ought to be fairly weighed against the resulting confusion and inaccuracy. (Having said that, feel free to add them into the corner of Image:Viceroyalty of New Spain 1789.png.) Contributors to Spanish Empire and British Empire have expressed aversion to these kinds of maps for a variety of reasons. The ideal solution would be an animated .gif illustrating the territorial development of the Viceroyalty, but that lies beyond the reach of my talents. Salud, Albrecht (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. I agree that an animated map will suffice, but I respectfully disagree with the current ma. The map is misleading. New Spain should never be confused with Spanish North America. The islands like the Philippines were part of New Spain even before Alta California was taken by the Spanish. The islands remained with New Spain even for a longer period. This begs the question: why is Alta California in the map and not the Philippine islands? Significant amount of goods from New Spain came from the Chinese junks that traded in Manila. The Chinese goods came to Spain via the Manila-Acapulco Galleon shipping lane which was internal to New Spain, followed by the Atlantic trade route, between Veracruz and the peninsula. If the Pacific trade route was vital to the economy of New Spain, why would the other half of the route be removed from the map? If I may compare, it would like removing Hawaii from the map of the US. :) --Noypi380 (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)