Greatest Spanish contribution(s) to the world ?

What is/are the greatest Spanish contribution(s) to the world?

  • Spanish food (tapas, paella, tortilla, Iberian pork, churros, etc.)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The classical guitar

    Votes: 1 100.0%
  • Spanish painting (Goya, Velásquez, Dali, Picasso, Miro, etc.)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The invention of cigarettes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The epidural analgesia

    Votes: 1 100.0%
  • Other (please specify)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    1
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!
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
i wouldn't bother talking to sparniards Maicmao, they are all scum. they did nothing good for america or their european collonies (belgium and the netherlands). all they did was about pillaging, killing and raping.
 
i wouldn't bother talking to sparniards Maicmao, they are all scum. they did nothing good for america or their european collonies (belgium and the netherlands). all they did was about pillaging, killing and raping.

Uneducated and antagonistic comments are not appreciated. Find another sandbox...
 
You have forgotten our best inventions, the submarine, autogiro (first helicopter), talgo (first modern train), radio(Juan Cervera Babiera), space suit, digital calculator...
maybe the telescope (Juan Roget, news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7617426.stm)
 
You have forgotten our best inventions, the submarine, autogiro (first helicopter), talgo (first modern train), radio(Juan Cervera Babiera), space suit, digital calculator...
maybe the telescope (Juan Roget, news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7617426.stm)

Julio Cervera Baviera sorry...
 
Alexander Graham (American) invented the telephone

Conelius Van Drebble (Dutch?) built the first submarine in 1620

Igor Sikorsk ( Russian) designed the first helicoper in 1939

Nicola Tesla, 1882 (Serbia) designed the first "fundamental" radio and Guglielmo Marconi (Italian) is also given credit for inventing the radio.

All of the above, can be verified individually on Google.

Please post sources and references that the Spanish/Spain invented the above.

Just saying something "does not make it true"

Melusine
 
Alexander Graham (American) invented the telephone

Conelius Van Drebble (Dutch?) built the first submarine in 1620

Igor Sikorsk ( Russian) designed the first helicoper in 1939

Nicola Tesla, 1882 (Serbia) designed the first "fundamental" radio and Guglielmo Marconi (Italian) is also given credit for inventing the radio.

All of the above, can be verified individually on Google.

Please post sources and references that the Spanish/Spain invented the above.

Just saying something "does not make it true"

Melusine

telephone? what?

Submarine in the modern sense. Or do you consider that carts and cars are the same? "Ictineo II" was the first combustion prowered submarine and "Peral" the first electric submarine. Both spanish.

I said Autogyro (antecessor of helicopter) by Juan de la Cierva, later Igor Sikorsk paid him the patent by the rotor (the imprescindible and most important part of the helicopter).

False. Julio Cervera Baviera was the inventor, there´re four patents in differents countries that prove it.
unav.es/english/news/38.html (i can´t post urls, add www)

All of the above, can be verified individually on Google too :cool-v:
 
Alexander Graham (American) invented the telephone

Conelius Van Drebble (Dutch?) built the first submarine in 1620

Igor Sikorsk ( Russian) designed the first helicoper in 1939

Nicola Tesla, 1882 (Serbia) designed the first "fundamental" radio and Guglielmo Marconi (Italian) is also given credit for inventing the radio.

All of the above, can be verified individually on Google.

Please post sources and references that the Spanish/Spain invented the above.

Just saying something "does not make it true"

Melusine
I have already posted all the sources. Read the thread properly before posting. Here there are my posts :

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=366766&postcount=13

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=366780&postcount=23

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=366773&postcount=19
 
I would suggest that anyone who mistakenly contested any valid information correct the thread record. Be fair, accurate and give proper credit.
 
The submarine: google. Sumarine Hiswtor 1580-1869
http://www.submarine-history.com?NOVAone.htm
Helicopter- Wiipedia. Google: History of the helicoper
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter
The Radio: google. The inventio of radio
http://inventors.about.com/od/restartinventions/a/radio.htm
The Telescope. Google. History of the telescope
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_telescope

Radio

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_radio

Julio Cervera Baviera developed radio in Spain around 1902.[11] [12] Cervera Baviera obtained patents in England, Germany, Belgium, and Spain.

http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/radio_patents.html

1899 Julio Cervera Baviera Basic wireless system. Some see him as the true inventor of radio. GB20084

Autogyro (HELICOPTER ANTECESSOR, ROTOR)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogyro

Invented by the Spanish engineer Juan de la Cierva to create an aircraft that could safely fly at slow speeds, the autogyro was first flown on 9 January 1923, at Cuatro Vientos Airfield in Madrid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_de_la_Cierva

His most famous accomplishment was the invention in 1920 of the Autogiro, a single-rotor type of aircraft that came to be called autogyro in the English language. After four years of experimentation, De la Cierva developed the articulated rotor which resulted in the world's first successful flight of a stable rotary-wing aircraft in 1923 with his C.4 prototype.

Telescope

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7617426.stm

New evidence suggests the telescope may have been invented in Spain, not the Netherlands or Italy as has previously been assumed.

http://www.historytoday.com/nick-pelling/who-invented-telescope

Perhaps, if modern historians now pick up the threads of evidence around the Roget family in Barcelona, Gerona and Aveyron, a fuller picture will emerge. The history of the telescope may indeed turn out, as Simón de Guilleuma believed, to have started not with a set of curious coincidences in the Netherlands but with a single founding genius in Catalonia. For the last 400 years, might astronomers have really been seeing the skies through Spanish eyes?

Submarine (in a modern sense)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine

The first combustion-powered submarine was Ictineo II, designed in Spain by Narcís Monturiol.

Two submarines, both launched in September 1888, marked the maturing of naval submarine technology.

One was the Peral Submarine, launched by the Spanish Navy.
It had two torpedoes, new air systems, hull shape, propeller, and cruciform external controls anticipating much later designs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peral_Submarine

The Peral was the first electric battery powered submarine,[1] and probably the first to use a chemical process to regenerate the crew's air supply.[2] Its operational abilities has led some to call it the first U-boat.

:cool-v::cool-v::cool-v::cool-v::cool-v::cool-v::cool-v::cool-v::cool-v::cool-v:
 
the greatest spanish invention is the chupa chups.

chupachups.gif


(y)
 
can we really consider the classical guitar as a "spanisn" creation? :rolleyes: after all i think it is just an evolution of the arabic guitar:
0.jpg
 
can we really consider the classical guitar as a "spanisn" creation? :rolleyes: after all i think it is just an evolution of the arabic guitar:
0.jpg

Would you like to provide us with some credible references? BTW, the instrument you posted is much closer to an Eastern mandolin, not a Spanish guitar.
 

This thread has been viewed 288911 times.

Back
Top