Talk:Conquistador

Talk page moved

content from Wikipedia:Reference desk about descendants of Pedro Serrano and Catalina Fernandez moved to Talk:Conquistador/Ancestry.

Word! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.53.104 (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Opening comment

We claim there is no relationship between the "Conquistador" and "Reconquista" concepts. There is one between the words obviously.

Reconquista was linked to the Crusades, though. See the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa. But I wouldn't link the Crusades to the Conquistadors. -- Davidme

I claim there IS a relationship. Spain's conquistadors and the Reconquista were directly related. Spain's conquistadors were merely the next evolution of the warriors from the Reconquista. Spain took over the Iberian Peninsula in 1492, and had nowhere to keep conquering except in the new world. They called themselves conquerors, or conquistadors, and moved on to new lands, to continue the cause of Christianity, by any means necessary. ~chip —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hungryhungrychippo (talk • contribs) 18:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like original research. No one cares what you claim. If you can find a significant source for your claim, then you've got something to talk about.Ekwos (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Three angry llama's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.53.104 (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Conquistadors or Conquistadores

In spanish the plural of 'Conquistador' is not 'Conquistadors', but 'Conquistadores'. In the same way latin words make plural with -i and english speakers use this form (like in sinus, sini), you must use this form of plurar.--Jose piratilla 23:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

How about just changing the at wording so a plural is unnecessary. Done.--Eb1232 03:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not entirely true that we "must" use the form conquistadores. The English language eventually goes towards common usage, not always prescriptivist rules. The plural of sinus is sinuses, not sini. Words like octopus can be both octopuses or octopi. ["Octopodes" is correct, actually] The Random House Dictionary gives the standard plural of conquistador as conquistadors, then gives the Spanish plural of conquistadores. The American Heritage Dictionary gives both versions of the plural but lists conquistadors first. Usually the first listed is the more common or accepted spelling and the second are the variants in dictionaries, which would mean that conquistadors is more common. Kman543210 (talk) 03:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

But this isn't about the English language, because "conquistador" is a Spanish word, not an English one. English dictionaries have no bearing on this, really. If you have to pluralize the word, use "conquistadores" because it's the correct term. If you won't use Spanish correctly, then just refer to them as "conquerors". Shadow86 (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is in the English-language section of Wikipedia, and it's using the English word "conquistador". Although the English word is derived from the Spanish word, the word, as used in English, is an English word. Its etymology involves Spanish, but dictionaries (e.g. Merriam-Webster and Random House) list it as an English word. Thus, the English plural is appropriate in the English-language Wikipedia article. In a Spanish-language article, the Spanish plural would be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.126.40 (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The word "immensely" means? It is a subjective qualification. IMHO, Pizarro was an immense success, since not only lead to the conquest of the largest civilization of South America, but it also provided the know-how for Mexico's conquest. Luiscolorado 14:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I love this rediculous argument! Word! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.53.104 (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Complete Reworking Definitely Needed

This article is completely unreadable. It appears to be a badly translated version of something else poorly written. --70.89.231.121 (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Unfortunately, I'm not at all familiar with the subject (which explains why I visited the page). Dziban303 (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This might be the most biased and poorly written article I've encountered on Wikipedia.--Sumixam (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Nee! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.53.104 (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Complete Reworking Needed?

I would suggest this topic be reworked in its entirety. There are so many instances of confusing, ambiguous or muddled passages that it approaches incoherence in places. If it is a translation, perhaps a different translator should try his or her hand. The 16th- and 17th-century Spanish exploration of the New World is a topic covered in most European and North and South American elementary and/or secondary schools, and this article receives many hits from students doing basic research or following up on their school work. As such, a thoroughly researched, reliable and well-written article is of particular necessity. As now constructed this article is not of as much assistance as it could be. Jum1801 (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Mistranslation

In the article, the name 'El primer nueva crónica y buen gobierno' is translated as 'New Chronicle and primer on good government', which I am absolutely certain is NOT the correct translation. My guess is it means something along the lines of 'The first new chronicle for good government'.

I KNOW it's not 'a primer' since primer is spanish for first and 'a primer' is a modern American-english term for an instruction book on how to get started.

Can a proper spaniard please change the translation?

Translation by a spaniard: The "Primer Nueva Corónica y Buen Gobierno", means "First New Chronicle and Good Government". So it's the first [ book about the ] first chronicle (it's about the indian way of life before being civilizated) and good government (it's a complain about the Spanish rule).

'The first new chronicle AND good government'. "buen gobierno" is a old administrative formula meaning "gobierno".

This is not correct translated. 'Primer' and 'nueva' does not share the same genus, so, 'Primer' (First) does not relate about the New chronicle, it is related to a book. The correct translation would be "The first 'book named' new chronicle and good goverment". In fact the original name of the book is 'Nueva crónica y buen gobierno', and 'El primer' (not included in the original cover) was added late. And please, sing yout posts. --Jose piratilla 23:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe "governance" is better than government.

I have left out "El primer", it is not always used when quoting the title and, besides, its gender does not match corónica.

See the Danish Library for the pre-publication title.

--Error 9 July 2005 01:27 (UTC)

EXCUSE ME BUT THE WORD "Conquistador" Is not only a word used in Spanish but in Portuguese as well!

I have a B.A. in Spanish. I think 'primer' and 'cronica' do not agree in their genders because the title has a more abstract meaning. Consider this: "Primer (Nueva Cronica y Buen Gobierno)". You see, whenever mixed genders are present (such as cronicA and gobiernO) the masculine form is utilized when making references to them both. Also it should be noted that "primer" in the masculine form need not have an 'o' ending; I have heard the phrase "el primer piso" utilized as much as "el piso primero". To answer the question I anticipate next: yes, the adjective in most cases does follow the noun, however it can be placed before it to give a different meaning. For example: "el hombre pobre" is literally, "the poor man". "El pobre hombre", however means "the poor man" which could be due to any unfortunate circumstance. Similarly, "el edifico grande" literally means "the big building" while "el gran edificio" translates to "the great building". And just like with 'primero' losing its -o to become 'primer', in this situation the 'grande' has lost its -de to become 'gran'. Now, to get back to the correct translation, I am not sure as to what other meaning "primer" could have other than literally "first", but putting the parentheses back in the English interpretation may be the first step. "First (New Chronicle and Good Government)." Perhaps someone with a Masters Degree in Spanish rather than just 'a Spaniard' would be a more credible resource; English is my native tongue but I am quite certain that my wording is not without imperfections... Carl Logsdon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.198.31 (talk) 06:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It's the first edition of the "Guide to Good Government" keep it simple, and alliteration always sounds nice! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.236.79.13 (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Not Broad enough

This article should have more information about who the conquistadors were in general, not just about the conquests of the few famous ones. It should have information on the equipment, weapons, tactics abilities and horsemanship of the conquistadors. his article is entirely to short for the impact the spanish conquests had on the entire world and the path of civilization.

why dont you do it then?89.242.173.91 (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

the 20th and 21st centuries?

Quote:

"...brought much of the Americas and Asia Pacific under Spanish colonial rule between the 20th and 21st centuries."

I think it was a little earlier than that.

It was just a case of vandalism. I have reverted that edit. Next time you see something weird like that try and click the "history" tab and compare different versions to see when the error/vandalims was added and what others wrote before. Take a look at the history of this page and play with the functions of the history view and you can see what happened. (It takes some playing around with the history view to understand how it works.) --David Göthberg 17:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

video game image

That's, well, odd! "Let's play the virtual colonisation"

I have a question

Every time I read about the conquistadores and the American colonies of Spain, there is a strong emphasis on how cruel and greedy the spaniards were and how many indians they killed. On the other hand about the British, Dutch, French or Portuguese colonies there is only names, dates and standard information. And I wonder why. Maybe there was no slavery in these colonies. Or there was? Maybe the other countries did not exploit their colonies as much as they could. Or maybe they did. Moreover, the USA started an expansion towards the west. They killed very many indians looking for gold and new lands. Later they invaded Mexico and force the mexican to sell them their northern territories. Surprisingly, all these "cow-boys" who killed indians and mexicans in the XIX century (not that far in time) are considered heros in all the films and books. They are almost always the good guys. Could anybody give a serious explanation (with no prejudice) on that?

QUITE good point. I also want to know. Another question linked to yours would be...if the conquistadores were such a bloodthirsty people, how is it that at this time there are several million native south americans and mestizos but...only a few native north americans barely surviving? David 15:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

They were bloodthirsty,but they did not settle with their families in South America as much as their "American" counterparts.Their gains and aims in Americas was in shorter term than those in Northern America.But they are still bloodthirsty assholes for me,and nothing can justify against it.--85.105.127.49 09:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It is true that every colonial power can be charged with sins against those being colonized. Some of those sins are covered and some are not. The Spanish conquistadors have historically been charged with greater sins (see the Black Legend article).

Discussing this point here can only lead to a heated debate which will not improve this or any other article related to the conquistadors. I would urge you not to engage in the debate here. It's a waste of time. If you wish to change the balance of treatment, please go to the other articles and increase the emphasis that they give to the mistreatment of natives. The imbalance of coverage does not justify softening the truth about how the conquistadors treated the natives.

--Richard 16:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I hate those conquistadors

Bold text== Use of Spanish language terms in English? ==

I'm curious, why is it that the word "conquistador" is used in English, even though the word "conqueror" is a perfectly good translation for it? I realize that "conquistador" carries with it the implicit location (America) and time (starting in the late 15th century). But it's easy enough to say "Spanish conquerors in the New World" or some such.

This reminds me of peculiar uses of Spanish words in English in a misguided attempt to be specific. For example, "queso" is used in the U.S. to refer to a melted yellow cheese served in Mexican restaurants. But the word simply means "cheese" in Spanish. Any kind of cheese. Same goes for "sombrero." That's just a hat of any kind, not just what Mexican charros wear.

And looking at it from another angle, why is it that U.S. history books don't refer to other European colonial conquerors in their own languages? (French, Portuguese, Dutch, etc.) This oddly inconsistent practice continues to this day with the word "Latino", even though there's the term "Latin American" in English. U.S. immigrants from other parts of the world usually aren't described with terms from their own languages by people in this country.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.113.203.48 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-12T23:19:00 - Please sign your posts!

In regards to referring to them as "conquistadors" I don't think they should be called anything of the sort. As this article correctly states it is what they referred to themselves and wanted others to perceive them as. But that couldn't be further from the truth. I recommend reading "The Seven Myths of Spansish Conquest" by Matthew Restall to get a more accurate perspective of this period in history. They were invaders, criminals and opportunists nothing more and nothing less that took advantage of the debilitating effect European disease had on the native population. To call them "conquistadors"/conquerors/etc... is an insult to their victims and their memories and descendants.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.68.135.247 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-20T19:03:42 - Please sign your posts!

What? Can be an insult to say they were good and honest sirs; but a conqueror is a conqueror althougth he rape, kill and sack, called Hernán Cortés, Genghis Khan or Alexandre the Great, the question is conquer a country.

-Fco

That's why calling them "conquistadors" is such a gross misnomer, they were not "conquerors" in the truest sense of the word. By ignoring and omitting the contribution of indigenous allies, it gives the false impression of passive, backward "savages" that were easily sujugated by a small band of thieves that travelled across from Europe. That is a grotesque over-simplification of the events that took place and in doing so perpetuates the myth the so-called "conquerors" created which does a great disservice to "conquered" present-day descendants. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.124.132.129 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-13T15:43:02 - Please sign your posts!

The fact is "Conquistador" is the absolute most commonly used term in english, and to use a different one would be foolish, no matter how it offends your political or philosophical sensibilities. More important than this esoteric philosophical dispute is the poorly written and disorganized nature of the entire article, which seems not to have been written by a native english speaker. Sentence structure, spelling and word use are all major issues throughout the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.39.15 (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Spelling of Hernán Cortés

Hi,

The Hernán Cortés article provides Hernán(do) Cortés as the spelling of his name. This formulation has been in use for over 6 months. Some anon editors have recently changed the spelling from Hernán(do) to Hernando and from Cortés to Cortez. I have reverted both of these changes because they were not discussed on the Talk Page first. However, I would not be able to defend the current formulation if challenged. Can anybody explain what the differences are between Hernán(do) & Hernando and between Cortés & Cortez? Thanx.

--Richard 06:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The difference is simple: the guy was called, as per the contemporary records, Hernán Cortés not Hernando Cortez whatsoever. Currently in Spanish the family name "Cortés" still exists, while "Hernán" has become rather "out of order", but that doesn't mean that we should change the guy's name now, right? So The Force is definitely by your side to defend "Hernán Cortés" anytime..I'm sure he thanks you from well under the sod..Mountolive 07:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I can ensure that in Spain all historic book spell Hernán Cortés. Im Spanish and it's the first time I see It spelled Hernando Cortez. --Jose piratilla 22:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Why has the Portuguese side of this...

...been completely erased? Considering that it was the Portuguese who took much of Brazil and South East Africa - well?Tourskin 02:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

And don't tell me to be bold. Thats not answering why. Tourskin 02:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Spanish page

Brought lotsa stuff over from Spanish Page--209.213.220.227 (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Article Sections

The way the article is broken up is quite haphazard and confusing, particularly the "Factors" segment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.39.15 (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It's really a poorly constructed article that needs work. Noteworthy is that we must discuss that the so-called victims in this story were hardly passive little lambs --- the Indians were viscious, trecherous, bloodthirsty savages who had even fewer scrupples than their conqurors. So let's skip the revisionism and tell the true story.--137.186.193.232 (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think the entire article is poorly organized and in some parts not well written. It needs a major upheaval, a better table of contents with more sections, rewriting, etc in order to make this a decent wiki article. As it is now, its confusing and sloppy, which makes it difficult to read and to edit. Bigdan201 (talk) 12:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The latent racism propagated by contributors on this page is disgusting to say the least. Labelling indigenous Americans as “bloodthirsty savages” and other derogatory racist slurs should have no place in a site with any credibility whatsoever. Throughout history no ethnicity on earth has had a monopoly on cruelty and brutality. It is then incredibly disingenuous and self-serving for any ignorant prejudiced simpleton to claim Europeans have any sort of moral high ground in this regard. Have the fools that make these sort of baseless assertions studied any European history at all? You could easily make a strong case to argue it’s Europeans who have shown a higher more frequent propensity for violence and savagery than any other group of people on this planet.

And to add insult to injury according to the twisted logic of the bigots who espouse this asinine verbal diarrhea, the supposed “savagery” of the “so-called” (the hide of these twits to even call this into question) victims somehow makes European savagery perfectly acceptable. Are there really people with these type of warped of views walking among us every day? Dear Lord. The indigenous Americans were minding their own business in their own land; no sane decent individual would use that reasoning as a justification.

I’m assuming that is probably Spanish nationals making this type of ignorant comments. I wonder how they feel about the Nazis, General Franco and the atrocities they committed when they ruled Spain and not forgetting the Conquistador Moors and their conquest that lasted almost 1000 years. Was it all okay because of the savagery the aboriginal Iberians had committed in the past? It beggars belief the hate-filled venom anonymous scum think they can get away with on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.3.192 (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss the article, not the subject. This page is to discuss how to improve the article. It is not a forum.-gadfium 21:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The article should be altered to eliminate the obvious bias against the Spanish. Those poor little Indians were no angels either --- human sacrifice, mass murder, all kinds of atrocities those savages committed should be included.--137.186.232.41 (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Black Legend

Looking over the various comments in the discussion, I can see the tremendous prejudice inherent in Anglo-Saxon analyses of Spanish history. Comments such as "I hate those assholes," and other such thoughts indicate to me that no such person should be writing or editing an article on Spanish Conquistadores. People behaved differently in the 16th century than they do now, and applying modern moral codes to behavior of past centuries is self-serving poppycock. Many European powers, including England, France, Holland, Portugal and others, engaged in colonial expansion in those years, and all, repeat all, treated indigenous people with cruelty and oppression. Even the Encyclopedia Brittanica notes that the Spanish are unfairly singled out as unusually cruel in this regard, but their sins were no worse than those of the people of other nations involved in empire building.

The Conquistadores who came to the New World were in fact brave and exceptional men, who accomplished things in the face of unimaginable adversity which most of us could only dream of. Who of us comfortably reading Wikipedia in our air-conditioned rooms could even begin to think of traveling into the unknown, leading men into battle, and conquering foreign lands? Francisco Pizarro was killed during an attack by several men. He managed to get his sword, run through two of his attackers, and kill a third. He couldn't pull his sword out of the third man's body quickly enough and another attacker slit his throat. He was 70 at the time! They don't make men like that any more.Cd195 (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It is true that this "Black Legend" has persisted, and one of the main tenets of Wikipedia is to dispel legends and biases and present articles in an objective manor. A major bias one confronts in English-language textbooks, specifically American history books, is an anti-Catholic and anti-Spanish bias, which is an antiquated product of the Elizabethan Era. The first English, and later British colonists around which the story of the U.S.'s founding centers had a fear and hatred of Spain, and while they sympathized with their Protestant neighbors in the Netherlands and other locations.

I will admit that the Conquistadores faced more powerful enemies, including full civilizations, in the correct definition of the word, and their destruction of those civilizations may have had more of an impact, but we cannot ignore their English, Dutch, and French counterparts. The fact that they only caused the collapse of tribalistic societies does not suddenly turn them into a pastoral society on a higher moral ground than the Spaniards. Whether we like it or not, we Americans need to start looking at our ancestors in the same light as we look at Spain. JosCol (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be reworked. Surely it's obvious that no society has a corner on cruelty against others. It needs more factual language.--Parkwells (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The Black Legend is not solely to blame for the rotten reputation of the conquistadors. Consider that Bartolome de Las Casas (who can be dismissed of any accusation of propagating any sort "Black Legend) called both Cortes and Pizarro "villains" for their troubles. Consider also that the conquistadors themselves, while extraordinarily brave and resourceful, were by no means professional soldiers or gentlemen, but rather (for the most part) the social dregs of fifteenth century Spain. The role of the "Black Legend" in perpetuating the emphasis on the cruelty of the consquistadors has become a myth all of its own, especially since this cruelty was so extensively documented by the participants themselves, and commented upon extensively by their European contemporaries (and even by their erstwhile patrons and allies). I do agree that the application of 21st century values on the Spanish conquistadors is pointless, but it IS fair to point out that the savagery of these conquests raised quite eyebrows in fifteenth century Spain as well without complaining about historical revisionism or the "Black Legend". --Roger Williams 10:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Netparrot (talk • contribs)

Not really. What it's remarkable of what you've said is that Spain was the only western European nation in which a group of intellectuals questioned the legitimacy of conquest rather than simply trying to justify it by traditional means (look at the School of Salamanca's article). Several centuries later, other colonial powers just dismissed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.35.2 (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Conquistadores

Since there is a separate article - List of Conquistadores, why is this long list here? It should be deleted. --Parkwells (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

'The Conquest of the Americas by Spain' is absurdly biased for an aspiring encyclopaedia, at best a superfluous moral lecture. Not that it ought to matter for Wikipedia's purposes, but the "cultures of native peoples", native though they may have been, were in many respects savage and disgusting, and it can't have escaped everyone's notice that the Incas were themselves an oppressive empire. There's got to be a middle way between the Spanish chroniclers' treatment of the conquest and that of this article.

US black legend propaganda.

Well, this is the funny black legend so popular in the US. Caesar was a great conqueror, so was Alexander the Great, but the Spanish conquistadores, well just thugs. Very funny. And on top of that they murdered and destroyed those Amerindians. The funniest part is that to see Amerindians or Mestizos being a majority in an American country you have to go South of the Border. How come? Those brown people living in Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America are Amerindians? And where are they in North America? There must be some mistake here. Well, I know, they are not Amerindians, because they were killed by the Spanish, so they must be Spanish. PS. How the Amerindians became Spanish to suit Anglo Propaganda, a short story. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.12.158.241 (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I just made a fairly major revision of wording and style of the article. I took out some of the excessive quotes but left in questionable data and statistics, retaining the citation needed tags, to give the contributor further opportunities to cite his sources. Improve as needed, and feel free to correct any mistakes I made.Theseeker4 (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Not very sure what type of history books youve been reading, but any type of book that promotes a pseudo fascist ideal on story telling should be questioned before hand. It is true, conquistadors, as they are called, were indeed vilified, but vilified for actions they did (you see where im going with this), the lands they colonized were indeed ocupied beforehand, of the empires they destroyed little and nothing remains. It is true that compared to American colonists, the conquistadores were quite restrained, they indeed didnt performed near genocide on the natives. Yet, that doesnt excuse them for what they did (we cant just say that it was alright because everyone else was doing it at the time), perhaps you are making an argument in the wrong article, because it seems like you would like to redeem the conquistadors instead of trying to make the article more objective.--190.160.142.65 (talk) 01:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what history books you have been reading as the Spanish were responsible for destroying whole Amerind societies like the Arawak and others who refused to be slaves and work in the large agro-plantations established in places like Haiti, Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic. It was the Spanish and Portuguese who began importing African slaved into the Americas. Why? Because they wiped out and or assimilated the Amerinds. Better gets your facts straight before you start spouting your racist garbage. Europen explorers as a group destroyed the Amerind socities and imposed their ways on the "barbarians" first to exploit and later to "civilise" them. BTW there are no Amerinds in Haiti thanks to the Spanish and French. --Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

He is just pointing out the spectacular dishonesty in the Anglophone world (and strikingly, specially in the US) about this topic. The problem in making someone brought up in anglo culture aware how the black legend works is that, as a cultural meme so ingrained in their psyche, any venture into explaining the reasons why is not honest to singling out Spain for the sins that all Europeans empires committed can only mean that you are obviously trying to whitewash Spain's murderous history, if you are not actually a wannabe conquistador only dying to take a plane to the Andes and start murdering Native Americans for the kicks. If the same kind of adjectives and condemnatory tone were usually applied every time any topic of the English colonization of America and the later birth of the US is alluded, then there would be no accusation of anti-Spanish bias. The black legend is created by the omission of a similar stern condemnatory tone in European imperialism outside Spain. If you look at the history of this article, and later check the history of England colonisation and the history of the US you will notice that not much focus is made in "hating those assholes" English and early Americans, the founding fathers of America (enablers of genocide) or XIX century Americans. From my experience, it's absolutely impossible for many Americans to understand that if we are going to play the presentist game and we judge the Conquistadors by today's moral standards, then they have to do the same with their own European-American ancestors. Most have some kind of inbuilt mental mechanism that makes possible to put the spotlight in the atrocities of the Spanish empire, but for some reason they can't focus with the same intensity in the equally horrible atrocities made by their forefathers. And actually, that judgment should be harsher against their own, since the US was still committing atrocities in a much much more enlightened era than Spain did (not to mention that the vast majority of victims caused by the Spanish were caused by Old World diseases, and that there is no proof that there was any actual genocidal plans from their part, something that can't be said about the US). It's a mindblogging spectacle how some Americans still accuse monder-day Spanish of brutality against Native Americans, considering there is a deep sense of disgust in contemporary Spain regarding our old Imperialism. You can bet we don't exactly watch movies glorifying the conquistadores deeds starring some Spanish John Wayne equivalent.

The people who actually did/enabled/profited directly from the extermination/displacement/ostracism of Native Americans are your own European-American ancestors. Have this in mind when emphasizing how brutal and bloodthirsty and cruel and savage those evil Spaniards were. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srtype (talk • contribs) 15:12, October 19, 2008

Again you need to reread your own history books and look at the histories of war and subjugation that those "poor natives" inflicted upon themselves. Try the Inca War of Succession or the constant fighting between the plains Indians. The "victim mentality" only goes so far. We all had a hand in it.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh those Ugly Americans, they're at it again!!! (biting sarcasm)--Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

On whether to display the guys we're talking about here to be mean or not

I looked through the talk and... Gah. If you want to talk about 'on whether to display the guys we're talking about here to be mean or not' just use this 'article/discussion' for it instead of posting it all over the rest of the talk. Unlike how most of you seem, I'm actually trying to learn something here, so please make it easier for me. Thank you.

7h3 3L173 (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Smallpox Theory

I was just thinking maybe the bit about the smallpox needs to be... removed or reworded or something. Even though it was what they (you know who I'm talking about) said; "It was smallpox"; most people here seem to think so too; some new research suggests it might actually not be. Some people who study the subject think it might even be a disease that was already in the area (like the Black Death in Europe) that came back during a period of low resistance and killed everyone. I forgot what it was called, but it's on the tip of my tounge... ma- or mi- something -x- something.

7h3 3L173 (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

the politics of history's atrocities

if your genetic ethnicity has spanish or part spanish dna making up who you are it's time to acknowledge,own up and apologize for the invading,raping,murdering,pillaging,enslaving,conquering and assimmilating of millions of people on millions of acres in the western hemisphere and throughout the world and also for the widespread participation in the slave trade with sub-saharan africa in which the spanish and portugese brought over millions of black slaves to the americas.how come everyone who is of european descent is considered a white devil imperialistic slavetrading oppressor except for the spanish and portugese? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.29.190.51 (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

And what are you? Another non-European with a huge inferiority complex? Spaniards and Europeans did what they did because they had the guts and the capacity. The others did not because they did not have the guts or the capacity, not because they were mother Teresa. Native Americans or Africans etc were even more cruel among themselves. The Incas or Mayas had their own cruel empires. The Spanihs or Europeans just happened to do it better, you like it or not. Slave trade was popular in Africa among black tribes, later spread by the Arabs. The Europeans came later. And also brought later democracy, human rights, etc.... The rest of the world without the Europeans would be just an enormous heap of shit. YeaH, WE HAVE SHOWN TO BE THE BEST UP TO NOW. But you can do better maybe in the future. Keep up the good work but do not be ignorant about facts. Otto.

This is great stuff! A few points:

1. Haven't found anybody who wants to return to their original world/life as it existed before they were colonized/enslaved. Seems life is much better now, no matter what the ancestors had to endure.

2. Maybe this is the reason why professionals should be writing encyclopedias, not amateurs with an axe to grind.

3. For a generation so enamored with Evolution and Survival of the Fittest, we seem to be awfully willing to give it all up if it means a few weaker people will have to die. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.156.170.115 (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"There are no professionals, just those who are better at some things than others." John Madden --Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)