Three Day Weekend For Some

[Cagliostro]

You make a good point about Columbus himself, true he wasn't as bad as some of the men sent after him. Columbus himself actually got shafted as far as how Ferdinand and Isabella treated him after depositing the biggest territorial goldmine in history in their laps. Cortez was quite possibly the worst of the bunch.

And African Americans can thank a Spanish priest for the notion of enslaving them in the first place. He objected to the Native Americans being harshly treated and enslaved by their conquerers so he suggested as an alternative to go to Africa and capture "sub-human" Africans for use in the slave trade. Father Pedro de las Casas.

And another tragic aspect of the Spanish Conquest was the knowledge destroyed by them. Scrolls and tablets found in possession of the Incas, Aztecs and Maya were destroyed because they contradicted the Bible. How sad. Oral traditions survived of their origins and almost all of the Central and South American Native populations had legends of having come from a land in the east that was destroyed and submerged. Sounds a lot like Atlantis to me...The Aztecs in particular thought the coming of the Spaniards had been foretold in their legends, even down to details of being fair skinned with beards, and was their salvation. Hence the reason the Spanish so easily conquered when they were so outnumbered. That and the diseases they brought with them from Europe, and firearms.

[Cagliostro]

Originally posted by Jumper69:
Mexico City, AKA Tenochtitlan...

Sluggo, I could tell you stories about Cortes..... [img]graemlins/sleepy.gif[/img]

Actually GL, I'm not sure how you can blame de las casas for the black slaves. It's true he was a supporter of the importation of blacks but he wanted them as free laborers rather than slaves with the same rights and the indians.

Wasn't he known as the "Protector of the indians"?????

<font color="#000002"><font size="1">[ October 06, 2004 04:32 PM: Message edited by: Jumper69 ]</font></font>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes he was and he did, apparently, care a great deal about the manner in which Native Americans were treated. But it was to "convert" them to Christianity, not to protect their way of life and beliefs, that he acted. He introduced to Spanish authorities the notion of importing Africans because he felt they were better laborers and better suited to working than the Natives were. Perhaps for his time he was forward thinking and had at least some humanitarian motives. But under the surface he was a man of his age and saw the Native Americans simply as recruits for the church and had no respect for their traditions or beliefs or teachings. And regardless of his personal actions, he profited handsomely from the conquest and exploitation.

[jumper69]

I'm actually doing a short essay on the conquest of the Aztecs by Cortes in 1519.

I'm focusing on each culture's perceptions and assumptions about the other and how those allowed a vastly outnumbered Cortes to defeat a more advanced Aztec society.

Any thoughts on that GL???

[Cagliostro]

Quite simply the Aztecs thought the Spaniards were the return of their gods. (Much like Christians expect a 2nd coming of Christ at some point) Oddly enough their legends stated the following:

1. They would return from the east from the Aztec "motherland" (again I think of Atlantis)
2. They would wear beards (Aztecs were clean shaven)
3. They would be lighter skinned.

And all 3 corresponded exactly. To make it even more convincing their god Quetzaqoatle (Spelling?) was a feathered god with a snake in it's mouth (represented to this day on Mexico's flag) and the Spanish had feathers in their helmets. To a primitive people all of these "coincidences" were staggering. Now I am not suggesting the Aztecs were primitive in the sense they had no culture. They had a complex culture. This culture included human sacrifice to ensure the crops would continue to flourish (corn) but they were in isolation (their capital was actually in the middle of a large lake which is now dry and constitutes Mexico City) They apparently felt security in having their capital city surrounded by water (and again, I have to wonder was it also not an inherited tradition or racial memory of their island home of Atlantis which was also reportedly a large city surrounded by water....) Some scholars would dismiss my Atlantis claims as utter nonsense. But the Native populations in Central and South America clearly did not develop into the builders of megalithic structures and complex cultures indiginously IMO. They came from a destroyed homeland in the east in the remote past, approximately 10,000 yrs ago. They all retained legends of a similar nature and these included the destruction of their homeland and a migration to their present location. Roads lead out to deap water along the Yucatan Peninsula from when the sea levels were much lower during the last glaciation period. They had to lead somewhere...

<font color="#000002" size="1">[ October 07, 2004 08:46 AM: Message edited by: G L ]</font>

[jumper69]

You're talking about Quetzecoatl. It is weird that Cortes landed in the Aztecian empire on the same day their history fortold of the return of Quetzecoatl.

You got the description right: Tall, light skinned and bearded. I think Cortes recognized this and was able to us the Aztec's uncertainty to conquor them.

Cortes was brutal. I especially liked the fact that when his men were wanting to return home, Cortes burned and sank his ships leaving no choice but to move inland. hehehe....

Gotta love that kind of leadership! [img]wink.gif[/img]

[Cagliostro]

Pizarro was brutal too. He ransomed the last Incan king, Tupec Amaru and when the demand for gold/silver had been met he killed him anyway.

The Spanish also brought along huge mastiff dogs for "crowd control".

And disease.

But some revenge was exacted on the Europeans as they caught syphillis for the first time from the Natives.

[jumper69]

We didn't cover Pizarro. What I know of him is from my own "off line" research.

But, to me, the whole Spanish colonization of the Americas in the 16th century is fasinating.

[Cagliostro]

What's even more fascinating is that the Spanish acquired more territory and gold in this hemisphere than any nation in history and ended up being poverty stricken. The answer lied in the fact that all the gold and silver they mined in the "New World" created inflation in Europe. They did not develop trade or manfacturing (and when I say manufacturing I refer to simpler manufacturing of the day and not the type that would follow in the wake of the Industrial revolution) They simply became a funnel of wealth for the trading and manufacturing nations. (England, Netherlands primarily) The extant of their far flung territorial conquests made maintaining their control ever more expensive (same problem Napoleon would face) in both resources and manpower. Spain was controlled by the church, it was still in the dark ages while the rest of Europe was advancing under the influence of the Renaissance ("rebirth"). England built their wealth on trading and colonial imports and later manufacturing. Spain never did. Spain's rigid class system also discouraged industry and individual incentive. Los Creollos (people of Spanish parents but born in the colonies) were treated like 2nd class citizens which would ultimately breed the revolutionaries who threw off Spanish control in the 1800s. Spain (and France too) made it prohibitive for the nobility to engage in trade. They wound up with a poor theocracy of impoverished nobles with no skills. While the creoles had the guts, the money, the ambition, the skills. I'm sure you will continue to enjoy studying the Spanish colonial experience. I didn't know you were taking any history courses until you mentioned it here. I think if you got into the French Revolution it would captivate you as much as it has me. The "Reign of Terror" under Robespierre is especially intriguing. And I won't even get started on Napoleon. [img]graemlins/angel.gif[/img]

<font color="#000002" size="1">[ October 07, 2004 11:15 AM: Message edited by: G L ]</font>

[jumper69]

Yeah go figure...

You probably thought I was doing a quick google search or something when in actuality I was reciting what I had learned. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Unfortunately we are past the Spanish exploration and colonization period. We are now in the formation of the colonies and their growth. Things like the House of Burgess, Bacon's rebellion, etc.

Fasinating stuff. To think in high school I slept through most of this stuff.

We will cover Nap I think. I doubt I'll be as entralled as you but I may use you as a resource if you don't mind.

[Cagliostro]

It would be my pleasure. [img]smile.gif[/img]