Greatest Spanish contribution(s) to the world ?

[Maciamo]

I have split the offtopic discussion about ETA.

[Maciamo]

All colonial powers committed serious crimes against indigenous peoples. No European colonizer was any better or worse than the other.

Do yo really believe that ? The French were generally on very good terms with the Native Americans, traded abundantly with them and intermarried with them. There aren't known for forced conversions or massacres.

The Dutch had little foothold in the Americas, but overall their colonisation style was focused on the commercial aspects, rather than acquiring land (except for their self-centred colony in South Africa) or converting people. They were so unpreoccupied by spreading their own culture, language or convictions that Dutch language is the only colonial European language that didn't spread beyond the mother land (again, except in South Africa, but only among Dutch people, not indigenous populations). The Dutch took over Portuguese colonies along the coasts of Africa and Asia, and used Portuguese as a lingua franca (because it was already established in those ports) instead of imposing their own language. In Indonesia, the Dutch spoke Bahasa Melayu (the Malay language) for commerce, also because it was already widely used as a lingua franca in the region. They were the only ones that respected so much indigenous populations as to learn the local language rather than impose their own. That says a lot.

The British are generally regarded as the "best" colonisers though. They left the most positive feelings in their colonies to this day, and are the only one who maintained close relationships with their former colonies in the form of a Commonwealth of Nations (which includes its own sporting event, the Commonwealth Games).

As for the massacres of Native Americans in what is today the USA, it took place mostly in the 19th century (after the independence) when the young USA started to expand westward. But by that time the Amerindians had acquired guns and horses and were fighting against the Americans on a much more level field than the hapless (and hopeless) 16th-century Amerindians when the Spaniards landed.

However, it may well be that, overall, disease claimed more native lives in the New World than European arms.

No argument with that. Diseases killed hundreds of millions over time (tens of millions within a few decades of the arrival of Europeans in the Americas). Nevertheless, the Spaniards and Portuguese committed a lot of atrocities willingly too.

[Maciamo]

I was referring to a message you posted some time ago in a thread about the Crusades.

This is the thread: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18292

And this is the message:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpos...3&postcount=23

Regards.

I think you misunderstood. I meant that they were considered as heroes back then, not that I see them as heroes.

[Canek]

this thread is useless in my opinion. spaniards are and have ever been a disgrace to human kind. the world would have been a so much better place without them.

[P. Courvel]

The French mathematician Blaise Pascal once said "Truth on this side of the Pyrenees, error on the other side". That was in the 1600's but it didn't change much since. Spain contributed little to mathematics, sciences or philosophy. Look at the list of famous Spaniards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Spaniards). Before the 20th century the philosophers were all humanists (defenders of Indian rights) or theologians. The scientists are almost only doctors and naturalists or botanists studying the flora and fauna of South America. 90% of them lived less than 100 years ago or are still alive. Spain has no past in the intellectual realm.

[A ke bono kane kotto]

Wow there are some harsh words there !

Personally I like Gaudi. He had a very unique and interesting style inside the Art Nouveau movement. I tried to think about what Spanish painter I liked, but I am not an aficionado of bizarre and distorted pictures like Picasso or Dali. Goya and Velazquez are too dark, sinister and cheerless. Too bad there isn't a Gaudi of painting.

How about Spanish wines ? La Rioja wines are quite something, often better than French wines. Spanish cheeses, not so good though.

As for Spanish food, I like gazpacho (weird nobody mentioned it yet) and churros con chocolate (but not together !!). There are some great tapas bars here. My favourite Spanish restaurant is a Basque tapas restaurant (if that counts as Spanish ).

Greatest contributions ? Definitely not cigarettes !! It's hard to think of just one amazing thing. It's more a long list of small unrelated things.

[Carlitos]

Basque tapas restaurant (if that counts as Spanish ).

Of course that is counted as Spanish.

Spanish cheeses, not so good though.

Perhaps you are talking more about the reputation of quality.

If you like the light might like Sorolla.

By the way how fickle you are, do you think the world spins just for you?

[A ke bono kane kotto]

Of course that is counted as Spanish.

It was a joke, because many Basques don't feel Spanish.

By the way how fickle you are, do you think the world spins just for you?

Why, what did I say ?

[Carlitos]

[QUOTE=A ke bono kane kotto;368369]It was a joke, because many Basques don't feel Spanish.

You can not generalize, not all Basques think alike, unfortunately the regionalist nazionale are a scourge to Spain and the Basque terrorism involves thousands of murders, mutilations and shattered lives, now if you can joke, is free to do.

[Reinaert]

[QUOTE=Carlitos;368374]

It was a joke, because many Basques don't feel Spanish.

You can not generalize, not all Basques think alike, unfortunately the regionalist nazionale are a scourge to Spain and the Basque terrorism involves thousands of murders, mutilations and shattered lives, now if you can joke, is free to do.

You forget about the terrorism brought to Spain by generalissimo Franco.
And the Catholic Church that supported that dictator.

[Canek]

reinaert is right. spaniards are just getting what they deserve for their historical ties with fascism.

[Carlitos]

The Spanish people deserve the best, as everyone deserves.

[Wilhelm]

this thread is useless in my opinion. spaniards are and have ever been a disgrace to human kind. the world would have been a so much better place without them.

Is racism allowed in this forum ? And this guy calls others facist ?

The French mathematician Blaise Pascal once said "Truth on this side of the Pyrenees, error on the other side". That was in the 1600's but it didn't change much since.

French were known hispanophobes.

Spain contributed little to mathematics, sciences or philosophy. Look at the list of famous Spaniards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Spaniards).

Little ? More than most european countries. The fact that you are a ignorant and you don't know them doesn't mean they didn't exist :
How about the nobel prize winner Santiago Ramón y Cajal, considered the father of modern Neuroscience ? or the philosopher Ortega y Gasset ?

reinaert is right. spaniards are just getting what they deserve for their historical ties with fascism.

Spain has never been a fascist state, ignorant.

[Regulus]

Do yo really believe that ? The French were generally on very good terms with the Native Americans, traded abundantly with them and intermarried with them. There aren't known for forced conversions or massacres.

The Dutch had little foothold in the Americas, but overall their colonisation style was focused on the commercial aspects, rather than acquiring land (except for their self-centred colony in South Africa) or converting people. They were so unpreoccupied by spreading their own culture, language or convictions that Dutch language is the only colonial European language that didn't spread beyond the mother land (again, except in South Africa, but only among Dutch people, not indigenous populations). The Dutch took over Portuguese colonies along the coasts of Africa and Asia, and used Portuguese as a lingua franca (because it was already established in those ports) instead of imposing their own language. In Indonesia, the Dutch spoke Bahasa Melayu (the Malay language) for commerce, also because it was already widely used as a lingua franca in the region. They were the only ones that respected so much indigenous populations as to learn the local language rather than impose their own. That says a lot.

The British are generally regarded as the "best" colonisers though. They left the most positive feelings in their colonies to this day, and are the only one who maintained close relationships with their former colonies in the form of a Commonwealth of Nations (which includes its own sporting event, the Commonwealth Games).

As for the massacres of Native Americans in what is today the USA, it took place mostly in the 19th century (after the independence) when the young USA started to expand westward. But by that time the Amerindians had acquired guns and horses and were fighting against the Americans on a much more level field than the hapless (and hopeless) 16th-century Amerindians when the Spaniards landed.

I would agree that overall the French and the Dutch were less hostile to the natives. We must keep in mind, though, that their actions were probably directly related to their (French and Dutch) sparse populations in the New World. For the must part, they had little choice as being more aggressive would have resulted in their getting wiped out.


Although the British do seem to be the most efficient colonizers as far as building self-sustaining and vigorously growing colonies, it would be of benefit to note that their is one big difference. Even the earlier (pre-19th century) of British and British-allowed colonizers treated the natives much more as some type of alien group to be moved as far away from the colonizers as possible. The pattern of driving the natives away was established before Andrew Jackson and his successors.
The results today are quite telling; Latin America has many, many natives who still speak the old languages in many places. North America has very few. Those who remain among their own are relegated to reservations on at-best marginal land in many cases.

This should not be viewed as a defense of the manner in which the Spanish acted towards the natives. It was in fact awful. I just think that it would be best to recognize what happened while keeping the broader picture in view.

[Carlitos]

They did much damage to Spanish colonialism these foreign royal houses Handsburgo

[Canek]

all european kings/queens intermarriage with foreign royal houses. what spaniards did they did it by themselves. and they haven't contributed to anything postive to the world, just bullfighting, fascism and inquisition. not a heritage to be proud of. i would be ashamed if i were spaniard.

[Cambrius (The Red)]

all european kings/queens intermarriage with foreign royal houses. what spaniards did they did it by themselves. and they haven't contributed to anything postive to the world, just bullfighting, fascism and inquisition. not a heritage to be proud of. i would be ashamed if i were spaniard.

Talk about irrational hatred.

[Carlitos]

all european kings/queens intermarriage with foreign royal houses. what spaniards did they did it by themselves. and they haven't contributed to anything postive to the world, just bullfighting, fascism and inquisition. not a heritage to be proud of. i would be ashamed if i were spaniard.

You end with these arguments. If the Hansburgo it was the solution put hand after the Bourbons, the people only when you are revolutions can only, at that time the spaniards as you say they could not decide the course of their lives and future, much work is everyday,
Do you consider better and perfect than anyone?

The modern Spanish do not hate the Romans medernos or older, or anyone else for the story, it seems so ridiculous it is to split the breast of laughter.

[Cambrius (The Red)]

all european kings/queens intermarriage with foreign royal houses. what spaniards did they did it by themselves. and they haven't contributed to anything postive to the world, just bullfighting, fascism and inquisition. not a heritage to be proud of. i would be ashamed if i were spaniard.

You're exceedingly harsh posts are very similar to those of another Chilean (Pinguin ?) from the Anthroscape forum. BTW, he was permanently banned for posting insults and lies about a slew of European ethnicities.

[Maciamo]

I have split the argument about fascism in Spain.

[Drac]

Well, Spain has some examples of impact global literature such us Don Quixote, which has been translated in more than 50 languages.

Never mind the fact that Spanish literature created the modern novel and genres like picaresque. Hollywood is not making movies about it so it does not qualify. Ron Hubbard's Battlefield Earth is more influential than all that. It even stars John Travolta!

[Drac]

Do yo really believe that ? The French were generally on very good terms with the Native Americans, traded abundantly with them and intermarried with them. There aren't known for forced conversions or massacres.

The Dutch had little foothold in the Americas, but overall their colonisation style was focused on the commercial aspects, rather than acquiring land (except for their self-centred colony in South Africa) or converting people. They were so unpreoccupied by spreading their own culture, language or convictions that Dutch language is the only colonial European language that didn't spread beyond the mother land (again, except in South Africa, but only among Dutch people, not indigenous populations). The Dutch took over Portuguese colonies along the coasts of Africa and Asia, and used Portuguese as a lingua franca (because it was already established in those ports) instead of imposing their own language. In Indonesia, the Dutch spoke Bahasa Melayu (the Malay language) for commerce, also because it was already widely used as a lingua franca in the region. They were the only ones that respected so much indigenous populations as to learn the local language rather than impose their own. That says a lot.

The British are generally regarded as the "best" colonisers though. They left the most positive feelings in their colonies to this day, and are the only one who maintained close relationships with their former colonies in the form of a Commonwealth of Nations (which includes its own sporting event, the Commonwealth Games).

As for the massacres of Native Americans in what is today the USA, it took place mostly in the 19th century (after the independence) when the young USA started to expand westward. But by that time the Amerindians had acquired guns and horses and were fighting against the Americans on a much more level field than the hapless (and hopeless) 16th-century Amerindians when the Spaniards landed.




No argument with that. Diseases killed hundreds of millions over time (tens of millions within a few decades of the arrival of Europeans in the Americas). Nevertheless, the Spaniards and Portuguese committed a lot of atrocities willingly too.

It is pretty obvious from your posts on the subject that you very uncritically accept the "black legend". The British and French obviously painted rosy pictures of themselves while demonizing the much envied and resented Spanish empire. Unfortunately, the facts don't add up to the legend. Just by taking a trip to the majority of American Spanish-speaking countries will easily show you how common Amerindians and Mestizos are. They make up the majority of the population. Now take a look at the English-speaking countries of the same area of the world. The natives are notable for their almost total absence.

I suggest you get more up-to-date with scholarship on the subject.

Here is a passage from a recent book pointing out the rather amusing hypocrisy of the whole thing:

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/871820.html
　
Celebrating Humboldt as a "second Columbus" carried darker undertones which the celebrants worked hard to subdue, for as Stillé recalls, the transcendent achievement of Columbus was tainted by the enslavement and genocide of America’s indigenous peoples. Though Stillé followed Washington Irving’s popular biography (and indeed Humboldt himself) in defending the innocence of the Genovese navigator from the crimes unleashed by his discovery, all Anglo-America rose up to condemn the Spanish conquistadors who came afterward. Indeed, the vehemence of the "Black Legend" that had grown up around Hernando Cortés and Francisco Pizarro—conquerors and destroyers of the Aztec and Inca civilizations respectively—was fanned by the guilt of those who spread it. The more bestial was the violence of the Spaniards and the more cruel their monomaniacal demands for gold, the more easily Anglo-Americans could portray themselves by contrast as agents of humanity and reason. Yet it was not an argument that stood up to close scrutiny. Whereas the Spanish government had made at least some attempt to limit and mitigate the enslavement of both Indians and Africans, the British had introduced slavery to their colonies and the Americans were perpetuating it even as they fought their war of "liberation." And whereas the Spanish had incorporated Indian populations into their colonial administration (and the French had befriended and allied with them), the English had swept them off the map and the U.S. Americans were exiling the remnants to bleak western desert lands.

But by that time the Amerindians had acquired guns and horses and were fighting against the Americans on a much more level field than the hapless (and hopeless) 16th-century Amerindians when the Spaniards landed.

The numbers of Amerindians vs Spaniards in many a case pretty much show that even if all the Spaniards had been armed with the clumsy & slow firearms of the day (and they weren't; the majority were armed with swords, spears, etc.) and on horseback they would still have been at a disadvantage. Pizarro had less than 200 men when he conquered the Incas, whose army was 40,000 strong. They should have been crushed by the numerical superiority of their adversaries.

[Drac]

this thread is useless in my opinion. spaniards are and have ever been a disgrace to human kind. the world would have been a so much better place without them.

You should actually be thankful the Spanish conquered your people, resentful "Latino". Had the British done so you would not be here bitching & whining but dead, or, alternatively, an unemployed alcoholic in some "reservation" for the survivors among your people.

[Wilhelm]

Although the British do seem to be the most efficient colonizers as far as building self-sustaining and vigorously growing colonies, it would be of benefit to note that their is one big difference. Even the earlier (pre-19th century) of British and British-allowed colonizers treated the natives much more as some type of alien group to be moved as far away from the colonizers as possible. The pattern of driving the natives away was established before Andrew Jackson and his successors.
The results today are quite telling; Latin America has many, many natives who still speak the old languages in many places. North America has very few. Those who remain among their own are relegated to reservations on at-best marginal land in many cases.

That's simplistic and naive. The british were far worse than the spanish. The spanish didn't kill millions of people, there is no prove to that, only the black legend. Actually, the amerindians tribes killed between each other already before the arrival of any european, and when spaniards arrived many of them sided with spaniards, against rival tribes, using guns, indians against other indians. Far from being a peaceful fary-tail of indians against the devil europeans. The spaniards MIXED with the indians, creating mestizoes, many of them became rich and upper-class. How many mestizoes are in the USA compared to Latin-America ?? Ridiculous to say the british were better. The brittish didn't want to mix with them, they just killed them.

[Maciamo]

Just by taking a trip to the majority of American Spanish-speaking countries will easily show you how common Amerindians and Mestizos are. They make up the majority of the population. Now take a look at the English-speaking countries of the same area of the world. The natives are notable for their almost total absence.

The spaniards MIXED with the indians, creating mestizoes, many of them became rich and upper-class. How many mestizoes are in the USA compared to Latin-America ?? Ridiculous to say the british were better. The brittish didn't want to mix with them, they just killed them.

The two main reasons why former Spanish colonies have a greater percentage of people of Amerindian descent are :

1) The only two big and populous pre-Columbian empires in the Americas, the Aztec and Inca empires, became Spanish colonies. Their population densities contrast sharply with that of the nomadic tribes of North America. Nomadic hunter-gatherers just cannot sustain big populations. What happened in North America is similar to what happened in Europe during the Neolithic and Bronze Age; indigenous hunter-gatherers were overwhelmed and outnumbered by more technologically advanced farmers and stockbreeders. In addition, the US population grew extremely fast by any global standard thanks to a steady flow of immigrants from all over Europe. From 1700 to 1860, the USA doubled its population every 20 years ! In 160 years, the US population increased by 12000% !! (120-fold in barely 5 generations). How can you expect a constant population of hunter-gatherers not be swallowed in this mass ? If you think that today's difference of percentage between Amerindians and other US citizens is solely due to massacres, you are badly deluded.

There were plenty of wars between Europeans and Native Americans, and Europeans won most of them thanks to better technology. That's undeniable. The few settled native populations, like the Cherokees or Creeks, were relocated by force and countless people died in the operation. That's also a fact. Nevertheless, 3 million US citizens are still predominantly of Amerindian descent, and recent genetic studies revealed that a great number of White Americans (especially in the South-East) have some Native American ancestry. In Canada, as much as 4% of the population is Amerindian, despite heavy immigration from all over the world like in the USA.


2) In the first century of colonisation, the Spanish massacred or enslaved a lot of Amerindian men, while marrying, having sex with or raping the native women. It didn't happen everywhere, but the practice was widespread enough for the population of many Latin American countries to become mostly mestizos. Genetic studies have shown that most men in Central America, Colombia and Venezuela today have European Y-chromosomes (but very often Native American mtDNA). In Colombia, for example, only 1% of the population is purely Amerindian. In Paraguay, 95% of the population is mestizo. About 80% of Mexicans are also mestizos, while approximately 10% are "fairly pure" White Europeans and 10% are Amerindians. If the Y-chromosomes and mtDNA were balanced between European and Amerindian types, we could assume that the two ethnic groups mixed peacefully with each others. However, the absolute dominance of Spanish paternal lineages and Amerindian maternal lineages leaves no doubt that the process was a violent one which eliminated male Amerindians from the equation.


Incidentally, I am not American, nor British, nor French, nor Dutch. I have no reason by my nationality to be more biased towards the Spanish or the French or the British or the Americans in this argument. My country didn't have any colonies in the Americas either. I am commenting it from a detached and neutral point of view.