Talk:Black Legend

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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)

It strikes one as a direct (and automatic) translation from Spanish, eg. Reference to "Jail and Matthew Garcia Bretos, The Black Legend (1991) & Matthew Garcia Carcel, Bretos, p.84". "Jail" is actually Ricardo García Cárcel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanningar (talkcontribs) 15:41, 17 October 2016 (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)

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)

Impossibility of making a good article from this[edit]

Whoever has studied the Black Legend will understand that it is impossible to make a fair article from this, for several reasons: 1-The black legend is one of the deeper prejudices in the world, and what is worse, is a prejudice which is considered politically correct (unlike antisemitism, or racism). 5 centuries of propaganda can't be ereased from the folks mind just by making some comments. I am right now reading the bestseller "Why Nations Fail" by Robinson and Acemoglu. The first 20 pages are a grotesque oda to the Black Legend in its purity. References to Bartolomé de las Casas (read "Father Las Casas: his double personality" for more references to his mental problems, by Claudio Sánchez Albornoz) couldn't be missed. Warm praises to the book can be read in the first pages, coming from the New York times, the BBC or some Nobel laureate in economics. The Black Legend is still alive today, and it enjoys a great health. Hundred of thousands of people reading and enjoying a modern Theodore de Bry war propaganda remix. And the World goes on spinning...Reading that some historians say that the Black Legend does not exist nowadays is like reading that some scientists say the moon is made of cheese. Discussing about the Black Legend today is like discussing about racism in the XVI century. You already lost before starting. 2-Latin american countries use to make the Black Legend one of their pillars for their national identities. Trying to talk objectively about the Black Legend with them is like telling the Pope that God does not exist. People from these countries, the very descendant of the conquistadores, are specially agressive reverting comments or data that don't match the Black Legend tale exactly. Many generations must pass before this prejudice based on colonial war propaganda falls down, as happened with antisemitism, racism, or machism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.148.22.19 (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

What do you consider to be the source of pervasive anti-Spanish sentiment in contemporary society and scholarship? Honestly I don't think there is a lot of the original Black Legend in circulation today. There is criticism of the Spanish colonial empire, but it tends to be motivated by a general critique of imperialism and colonialism rather than anti-Spanish sentiment. Most historians I know who write about Spanish colonialism are quite able to do so onbjectivly. I also dont know any historians of Las Casas who take Sanchez Albornoz speculations about his psychology seriously.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
As I understand it, 178.148.22.19 explains clearly what he thinks is "the source of pervasive anti-Spanish sentiment in contemporary society": "5 centuries of propaganda can't be erased from the folks mind just by making some comments".
--Ecelan (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Yeah, I would not take Sanchez Albornoz too seriously on las Casas. Anyway, it still surprises me that the account of one person with an agenda, that cannot be confirmed by any independent accounts in any way, has been accepted as the Truth without any doubt.
P.S.² Powell mentions the anti-Spanish slant of the educational system in the USA studied by the American Council on Education in the 1940s; Powell himself reaches the same conclusion in the 1970s. John L. Robinson studied the same in 1992 for Britain in "The anti-hispanic bias in British historiography" and Jesús Troncoso García did the same in 2001 in "Enfatemática del antiespañolismo en los textos de historia en países europeos y americanos" for Europe and South America. There you have some recent consequences/forms of the Black Legend.

mystery footnote[edit]

A google search for this book cited in the notes turns up nothing: Jail and Matthew Garcia Bretos, The Black Legend (1991) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.22.241 (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

La leyenda negra, Ricardo García Cárcel, Lourdes Mateo Bretos, ISBN 9788420735542
Cárcel = Jail; Mateo = Matthew Face-grin.svg
--Ecelan (talk) 08:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Black Legend. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)