# El descubrimiento de América



## Reili

La historia es un verdadero lío, a la pregunta de ¿quién descubrió "América"? todo el mundo responde: Cristóbal Colón, pero sin embargo el continente no se llama Colombia, Colonia o algo por el estilo, y según lo leí es que se  llama América en honor a Américo Vespucio y que Colón solo llegó a lo que conocemos como América sin darse cuenta de que era un nuevo continente y por eso le llamaba Las Indias. También leí que más tarde Americo Vespucio, tras varios viajes a "Las Indias" comprobó que las tierras descubiertas no eran una prolongación de la península asiática, sino un nuevo continente. Este viaje fue narrado por Vespucci en una carta que dirigió a Lorenzo di Pier Francesco de Medici, editada en París en 1502 con el título de _Mundus Novus_. A él se refirió también en la carta que dirigió en 1504 a Piero Soderini, impresa con el título de _Lettera di Amerigo Vespucci delle isole nuovamente ritrovate in quatro suoi viaggi._

Por fin, ¿quién es el verdadero descubridor? ¿el que llegó primero sin saber que estaba en un nuevo continente o el que se dio cuenta de tal hecho? 
Porque si es el que llegó primero sin saberlo entonces otros llegaron mucho antes que Colón.

Bueno esto es sólo para abrir el tema en espera de su participación.
Gracias.


----------



## cuchuflete

Según mis recuerdos del instituto, los Noruegos o Daneses llegaron mucho antes de Colón.


----------



## panjandrum

St Brendan, that well-known Irishman, discovered it in the 6th Century.  

He had the inherent wit to leave it alone.  

Unknown it lay, until some idiot European found it again 800 years later and couldn't keep his mouth shut


----------



## cuchuflete

Hola Panj,

Is that the famous Irish gift of gab?

c.

PS- Just think...if he had claimed it, it could have been a source of revenue to support the Common Agricultural Policy today.  God bless George III.


----------



## panjandrum

Cuchu: Really, would I lie to you 

St Brendan's Voyage is only one of very many detailed accounts. Being an Irishman of sound judgement and intelligence he had more wit than to confess to what he had found.


----------



## cuchuflete

Thanks Panj,
Knowing the veracity of the tale will enable me to enjoy the black flies, the copious mosquitos, and the greenheads as I plant this weekend.  He was an astute Irishman, for certain.

In a few weeks, when the wild blueberries on the hill behind the house are ripe, and I enjoy a fresh lobster from the Damariscotta River, I'll be glad for St. Brendan's discretion.  Maine will be nearly overrun by Irishmen from Boston, who appreciate these local wonders.


----------



## panjandrum

Arggh:  I am undone - and green with envy - so he goofed then 

But seriously though, the notion that he got there first has a disturbing tenacity.  OK so Columbus beats him 4:1 in Googlehits, but Columbus has had more professional PR.


----------



## QUIJOTE

panjandrum said:
			
		

> St Brendan, that well-known Irishman, discovered it in the 6th Century.
> 
> He had the inherent wit to leave it alone.
> 
> Unknown it lay, until some idiot European found it again 800 years later and couldn't keep his mouth shut


 
That's funny


----------



## Fernando

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Según mis recuerdos del instituto, los Noruegos o Daneses llegaron mucho antes de Colón.



Though the evidence is flaw (Nordic sagas + a couple of doubtful findings in Newfoundland and NE Canada + proved presence in Green(!)land) Cuchu is right: around AD 1000 the Norwegians are thought to reach America.


----------



## panjandrum

Fernando said:
			
		

> Though the evidence is flaw (Nordic sagas + a couple of doubtful findings in Newfoundland and NE Canada + proved presence in Green(!)land) Cuchu is right: around AD 1000 the Norwegians are thought to reach America.


And why do you think they called it "*Greenland*"?
It will have been one of our 40 shades then, won't it


----------



## Fernando

It is said it was a kind of 'marketing' term, to attract colonists. 

Think about that according the sagas, they named America (NE Canada) as 'Vinland' (Vineland)!


----------



## Noel Acevedo

Letting St. Brendon rest awhile...  Eri Thorvaldson (AKA Eric the Red) born in Jaeren, Norway discovered Greenland. His son Leif Erikson (AD 982) discovered Baffin Island around 1001, and farther south labrador and Newfoundland.  But as mentioned above the other Europeans who re-discovered the place,stayed long enough to claim the honor of discovery.

Noel


----------



## Phryne

Heyyyy, people!! America was discovered about 10,000 BC by a group of people from central Asia that spread out around the continent and later became the great cultures of the Mexicas (Aztecs), Mayas, Incas, Zapotecs, Guaranies, Mississippians, etc, etc, etc....

Oh those largely forgotten....


----------



## Cath.S.

Phryne said:
			
		

> Heyyyy, people!! America was discovered about 10,000 BC by a group of people from central Asia that spread out around the continent and later became the great cultures of the Mexicas (Aztecs), Mayas, Incas, Zapotecs, Guaranies, Mississippians, etc, etc, etc...
> 
> Oh those largely forgotten....


Thanks, Phryne, for stating the obviously not so obvious.  

I was reading on and thinking to myself "this is unreal!" and I was getting ready to post just about the same information you just did.


----------



## Asmodeo

Según algunos historiadores, un piloto español llamado *Alonso Sánchez de Huelva* llegó a América ocho años antes que Colón, y éste se benefició sin revelarlo de la información que le proporcionó aquel.

Más información: en español /    in English


----------



## fenixpollo

Ahora, hay evidencia de la llegada de exploradores *chinos y japoneses* que llegaron antes que los europeos.  Las pruebas son las anclas del estilo chino que se han encontrado en las costas de todas las américas (link).

En vez llamarlo "el descubrimiento de América", yo pienso que debe de ser "la llegada de los extranjeros a las Américas".

Saludos.


----------



## Fernando

fenixpollo, as you possibly know there is a book '1421: the year China descovered the world' when a British author said he has evidence in that year, Chineses descovered America and Australia. I think its evidence is weak.

As I said before, I think that even viking expedition is doubtful.

On a side note, 'siberians' were so strangers in the Neolitic to America as Colón in 1492.

Descubrimiento is a good description. Europeans and Americans did not know each others' existence. Europeans descovered America.


----------



## fenixpollo

Fernando said:
			
		

> fenixpollo, as you possibly know there is a book '1421: the year China descovered the world' when a British author said he has evidence in that year, Chineses descovered America and Australia. I think its evidence is weak.


Perhaps, but it was written before the new evidence of the anchors.



> As I said before, I think that even viking expedition is doubtful.


 Only if you look at the recorded history and not the physical evidence. Archeologists have found Viking settlements in Greenland and Newfoundland. The doubt is not "did they live in these villages?" rather "for how many years did they stay?"



> Descubrimiento is a good description. Europeans and Americans did not know *of* each others' existence. Europeans d*i*scovered America.


 I was going to disagree with you on this, but I suppose that the definition of "discover" is "to learn, for the first time, of the existence of something that had always existed." 

Galileo discovered that Jupiter had moons and Lowell discovered the existence of Pluto, because no human had known about these objects. Humans already knew about the Americas, so when you say that "Europeans discovered America", it implies "for humanity." I'd like to re-phrase your statement to talk about the "European discovery of America (for Europeans)."

Then again, maybe this is making much ado about nothing.


----------



## Phryne

Fernando said:
			
		

> Descubrimiento is a good description. Europeans and Americans did not know each others' existence. Europeans descovered America.


I'm sorry to disagree, Fernando, but if you mean that Europeans discovered the American continent, OK I can deal with it even though semantically speaking, the continent was inhabited, thus already discovered. It sounds as if I find Pluto and since I had never heard of it I can claim it my own discovery. It seems a little ethnocentric to me, that they can just claim it only because they knew nothing about it.

   Nevertheless, what's most important about the "discovery" was not the piece of land they found, but the (bloody and truly sad) encounter of two different worlds that had no idea about each other. I don't know how Europeans see this nowadays, but the aborigines of the Americas have their wounds wide open... it was possibly the biggest genocide in the history of the world. Really, it's nothing to be proud of. 

   saludos


----------



## Fernando

Thank you for your kind corrections of my Spanglish. I agree with fenixpollo's "European discovery of America". Of course if a sailor from Pascua island would discover America I would say 'Pascua discovered the rest of the world'.

In this case the rest of the world discovered America.

On Menzies' book: it was written AFTER the anchors. It is a 2003 book.


----------



## fenixpollo

Fernando said:
			
		

> Thank you for your kind corrections of my Spanglish. I agree with fenixpollo's "European discovery of America". Of course if a sailor from Pascua island would discover America I would say 'Pascua discovered the rest of the world'.


You're very gracious, Fernando.



> On Menzies' book: it was written AFTER the anchors. It is a 2003 book.


 After reading his website and this month's National Geographic  , I would agree with you that his "evidence" is doubtful, since it's all based on the theory that emperor Zhu Di's great fleet sailed everywhere in the world -- even though it's well documented that they went West, visiting Indonesia, Malaysia, India and the horn of Africa, but not Australia or the Americas.


----------



## Fernando

Phryne said:
			
		

> It sounds as if I find Pluto and since I had never heard of it I can claim it my own discovery.


I have admited before that America is not Pluto.  



			
				Phryne said:
			
		

> Nevertheless, what's most important about the "discovery" was not the piece of land they found, but the (bloody and truly sad) encounter of two different worlds that had no idea about each other.


In 1992 it was celebrated "el encuentro entre dos mundos", precisely because of the 'political incorrectness' of "descubrimiento". It was nicknamed rather "el encontronazo".



			
				Phryne said:
			
		

> I don't know how Europeans see this nowadays, but the aborigines of the Americas have their wounds wide open... it was possibly the biggest genocide in the history of the world. Really, it's nothing to be proud of. :


I disagree for two reasons:

1) I can not quite understand why it is to be shamed the fact of the 'discovering'. I mena, to launch an expedition and to communicate two peoples.

2) I disagree of the fact of the 'genocide'. It has been written a lot about the figures of Natives before/after the 'conquista' and , though I am not exactly proud on many things Spaniards (Anglos, defend yourselves) did, I am proud on some others.
I am going to be rude and intentionally provocative: Are you, argentinians, proud of the way you dealt with the indians?


----------



## Fernando

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> After reading his website and this month's National Geographic  , I would agree with you that his "evidence" is doubtful, since it's all based on the theory that emperor Zhu Di's great fleet sailed everywhere in the world -- even though it's well documented that they went West, visiting Indonesia, Malaysia, India and the horn of Africa, but not Australia or the Americas.



A pleasure to talk with people who investigates and admits when other (in my case, by chance) has a little part of the truth.

I warn you I am not ready to do the same.


----------



## Reili

En esta página encontrarán una explicación interesante (en español), que me parece más o menos convincente. Léanla por favor y comenten. Gracias.

http://centros5.pntic.mec.es/ies.arzobispo.valdes.salas/alumnos/filocien/descu.html


----------



## Phryne

Fernando said:
			
		

> I have admited before that America is not Pluto.


 Funny, I read fenixpollo after I wrote my message. That was definitely telepathy! 





> In 1992 it was celebrated "el encuentro entre dos mundos", precisely because of the 'political incorrectness' of "descubrimiento". It was nicknamed rather "el encontronazo".I disagree for two reasons:
> 1) I can not quite understand why it is to be shamed the fact of the 'discovering'. I mena, to launch an expedition and to communicate two peoples.


 I don't think YOU should be ashamed of anything. You were not there; I was not either. Anyway, when this "encontronazo" happened, I don't think the idea was to actually communicate... 





> 2) I disagree of the fact of the 'genocide'. It has been written a lot about the figures of Natives before/after the 'conquista' and , though I am not exactly proud on many things Spaniards (Anglos, defend yourselves) did, I am proud on some others.


 Do you really disagree about the word "genocide"? That's all new to me. It's not just about numbers, but also entire cultures that disappeared and the living conditions of these peoples thereafter. It's genocide and ethnocide. Also, the "discovery" brought more genocide with the introduction of African enslaved people... another horrible subject of the same story. Just curious, what are proud of? I mean, I always wondered the viewpoint of a Spaniard on this subject.... 


> I am going to be rude and intentionally provocative: Are you, argentinians, proud of the way you dealt with the indians?


You were not rude at all!

To answer your question, hell no, I'm not proud a bit of what my country has done and still does (let's not be naive here) with the aborigines!

saludos


----------



## fenixpollo

Fernando said:
			
		

> 1) I can not quite understand why it is to be shamed the fact of the 'discovering'. I mena, to launch an expedition and to communicate two peoples.


Phyrne is right here.  Columbus' motives were straightforwardly economic.



> 2) I disagree of the fact of the 'genocide'.


 Do you also disagree with the fact of the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis?



> (Anglos, defend yourselves)


 Just like Phyrne, I can't defend what my ancestors did.  I am not proud of the way in which they did it, because genocide was commonplace (if you still don't believe).  Two examples: 
1)the English expanded on a French idea of cutting the hair off of natives, in order to collect a bounty paid for any native killed -- thus the supposedly Indian tradition of "scalping."
2) After a smallpox (viruela) outbreak among American soldiers, American Army generals gave written orders to give the dead soldiers' infected blankets to natives -- speeding the process of genocide-by-epidemic.

You wanted to be provocative -- you got your wish, Fernando.


----------



## Asmodeo

Fernando said:
			
		

> 2) I disagree of the fact of the 'genocide'. It has been written a lot about the figures of Natives *before*/*after* the 'conquista' and , though I am not exactly proud on many things Spaniards (Anglos, defend yourselves) did, I am proud on some others.


I agree with Fernando about that. Aztecs, Mayas and Incas also committed genocide. For example, Aztecs made 20,000 human sacrifices per year, and Cortés, in spite of some cruel actions, stopped those crimes.


----------



## Fernando

I said 'to launch' and 'to communicate'. I have not said that Columbus motives were not economical. They were. 

My point was to say that the mere fact of launching an expedition to cross an ocean to an unknown mainland that you are uncertain if it is even exists is a big deed. 

For mankind, I can not see the 'utility' to keep uncommunicated the makind itself. To me communication (even if it was the way it was) is a good thing.

The Holocaust is not the point, but I certainly it was a genocide. Clear enough?

About Spanish and Portuguese intervention in America and the genocide: Spanish conquer of Antilles was a catastrophe to Caribe peoples. Cuba and Hispaniola were depopulated. In the mainland there was a sharp decline in the number of indians.

The problem is to know how many people died because of disease and how many people died because of direct murder. 

Though there are a miriad of writings on the subject (see wikipedia, to begin with), I would say:

1) The number of direct murder was (relativelly) low, for several motivations: conquer was fast, at least in Perú and Mexico, and economy demanded it: conquerors were asking for gold and slaves. It is a bit stupid to kill your slaves.

2) The number of indirect murder was much bigger: many indians died because of the work conditions in mines and 'encomiendas'.

3) The vast majority died because of diseases. Sorry, but I can not see which is the blame on Iberian peoples in this 3rd point.

I am (need to say?) ashamed of the two first points, besides the fact of the slave importation in Brazil and the Caribbean. English ships do not justify Spanish buyers.

Was it a genocide? I think not, because of two reasons:

1) There was not a deliberate try to get rid of the indians. Savage Spaniards killed the indians they disturbed them because they did not want to work for them, but they did not intend to kill every indian to enjoy alone the continent. As far as I know, Hitler want to delete the name 'Jew' from the Earth.

2) Except, maybe,  in the case of Cuba, there was not effective elimination of races in America. I mean, aimaras, quechuas and aztecs are still there. If Spaniards were genocides they were very bad genocides indeed. Nazis were much more 'efficient'.

3) I can not see which way you are going to eliminate a race if you marry (or simpler and oftener, rape) the 'genocided' population. It was not the rule, but it was not rare the case of Spaniards recognizing (Spanglish?) mixed-blood sons. Unlike Nazis, who set laws to prevent arian race.

What am I proud of?

1) The fact of the (for Europeans) discovering, of people circunnavigating the world and reaching the Philippines.

2) The military conquer: hundreds conquering a continent. Of course, in the same sense that a Mongol is proud of Gengis Khan.

3) Religion: You can like or dislike Catholicism, but I do not see the advantages of Mexican religion.

- Language: no. Most of the learning of Spanish was performed by independent countries, not by Spanish government.

4) Preservation of local cultures: Most of what we know about indian cultures was preserved by Iberian missioners and scholars. To me there was not ethnocide (in Phryne's sense). When Cortes was conquering tenochtitlan I can not see the Tlaxcaltecas doing something different.

5) Education: Not ever limited to criollos, there were universities and schools in America. The first railroad in Spain was done in ... Cuba.

6) Laws: Since the very first moment of the conquer there were laws from Spain, stating:

- Indians were not animals, but subdits of the crown.
- There were a limit on what the Spaniards could do.
- Their culture should be studied

Were these laws in force? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Some Spaniards defended the indians (some of them even lying, as Bartolomé de las Casas). some of them until death. 

All in all, after the 16th century, I think that Iberian colonization was 'fair'.


----------



## Zephyrus

No entiendo Fernando:
3) Religion: You can like or dislike Catholicism, but I do not see the advantages of Mexican religion.

Quien ha dicho que una religion tiene ventajas o no?? los antiguos peruanos no eran monoteistas, adoraban desde el sol (Inti)  hasta la tierra (Pachamama), pasando por las estrellas, los animales...tenian una vision muy amplia de la vida y religion como tal. Al llegar los españoles, creyeron poder desterrar siglos de esa cosmovision, pero no pudieron...de alli que veas en nuestras celebraciones religiosas actuales una increible mezcla de simbolos paganos, cristianos, indios etc.


----------



## fenixpollo

Fernando said:
			
		

> I said 'to launch' and 'to communicate'. I have not said that Columbus motives were not economical. They were.
> 
> My point was to say that the mere fact of launching an expedition to cross an ocean to an unknown mainland that you are uncertain if it is even exists is a big deed.
> 
> For mankind, I can not see the 'utility' to keep uncommunicated the makind itself. To me communication (even if it was the way it was) is a good thing..


Agreed.



> The Holocaust is not the point, but I certainly it was a genocide. Clear enough?


 Well, I thought that if you denied the reality of one genocide, you might deny the other. Just checking. Glad we agree on this one, at least.



> The problem is to know how many people died because of disease and how many people died because of direct murder.


 I consulted Wikipedia, as you suggested. Wikipedia's definition of "genocide" doesn't say that a certain number of people have to die, but defines it broadly as "deliberate mass murder." The article on genocide in the history of the Americas (link)establishes that it did occur.



> 1) There was not a deliberate try to get rid of the indians. Savage Spaniards killed the indians they disturbed them because they did not want to work for them, but they did not intend to kill every indian to enjoy alone the continent.


 False. There were many cases when the intent of the Europeans was to eliminate a certain tribe or group. 



> What am I proud of?
> 
> 1) The fact of the (for Europeans) discovering, of people circunnavigating the world and reaching the Philippines.
> 
> 2) The military conquer: hundreds conquering a continent. Of course, in the same sense that a Mongol is proud of Gengis Khan.
> *a small correction: military conquest*
> 
> 3) Religion: You can like or dislike Catholicism, but I do not see the advantages of Mexican religion.
> *This statement is (a) confusing in how it's expressed, and (b) extremely inflammatory. It could be the subject of an entirely different thread that will get you into even more trouble than this one. Please, Fernando, "don't go there."  *
> 
> - Language: no. Most of the learning of Spanish was performed by independent countries, not by Spanish government.
> 
> 4) Preservation of local cultures: Most of what we know about indian cultures was preserved by Iberian missioners and scholars. To me there was not ethnocide (in Phryne's sense). When Cortes was conquering tenochtitlan I can not see the Tlaxcaltecas doing something different.
> *You're just plain wrong on this one, Fernando. I don't even know where to start. Assimilation. "La Otra Conquista." Find out for yourself.*
> 
> Some Spaniards defended the indians (some of them even lying, as Bartolomé de las Casas). some of them until death.
> *True. It proves that humans can be good, no matter what tribe they're from.*
> 
> All in all, after the 16th century, I think that Iberian colonization was 'fair'


 Fair to whom?

It all comes down to point of view. Asmodeo called the Aztec religious ceremonies "crimes". From his point of view, he's correct. From my point of view, the Inquisition was a crime. Both were atrocities. You're right that atrocities were committed by all sides in the war for domination of the Americas. The Europeans won, by assimilating, relocating, enslaving, eliminating and dominating most of the thousands of independent ethnic groups that were in the Americas when the Europeans arrived. To deny that genocide took place or to call that process "fair", is, well....


----------



## Fernando

"False. There were many cases when the intent of the Europeans was to eliminate a certain tribe or group. "
Please?

"deliberate mass murder." 
My point is: was deliberate to kill the people?

"the Inquisition was a crime"
And you are right. But even the Inquisition did not kill 20,000 people at a time.
"You're just plain wrong on this one, Fernando. I don't even know where to start. Assimilation. "La Otra Conquista." Find out for yourself."
I think not. Please, give me the book reference. And, please, start.

3) Religion: You can like or dislike Catholicism, but I do not see the advantages of Mexican religion.
"This statement is (a) confusing in how it's expressed, and (b) extremely inflammatory. It could be the subject of an entirely different thread that will get you into even more trouble than this one. Please, Fernando, "don't go there."  

If your point is that there are not better religions than another I strongly disagree.


----------



## fenixpollo

Fernando said:
			
		

> A pleasure to talk with people who investigates and admits when other (in my case, by chance) has a little part of the truth.


Did you mean that it's a pleasure for you to talk with me because I admitted that I was wrong? Or did you mean that it's a pleasure to talk with me because I was gracious when I told you that you were wrong?

After your last post about religion, I see that I will not be able to help you learn new things about the conquest of the Americas. You are obviously passionate about defending your point of view because you believe it to be true, not because the evidence tells you it is true.



> I warn you I am not ready to do the same.


 When I saw this, I should have realized that this thread would be an exercise in frustration. Fernando, please let me know when you are ready to be open to new ideas.

I apologize to Reili and the other foreros for turning this thread into a petty (yet cordial) shouting match -- all because of an unremarkable Italian mapmaker named Vespucci!


----------



## libre

hey hey... I just read this... and I just want you to remember something... the best way to prove something is to try to go against it...

so if I have a theory... I will never really DISCOVER if it's true... If I just want to "win" ... I will discover the truth... even trying to prove that I might be wrong... even trying to give EVERY ARGUMENT to go against it...  and I shouldn't "attack" others who disagree with me.... maybe there's something better.... and I should be prepared to accept it....

Nobody can "catch" a fish... throwing stones to the fish... nobody can take something from the child's arms... if we try to take it by force... we should be able to show the child that there is something better.... if he "lets go"  and let's not be like a "kid" either... who hugs and holds tight what he has (in this case what he thinks) because he thinks it's the best....

I think what EVERYBODY should want is... the truth... overall!!!  I want to be a "truthseeker" not a "debate-winner" or an "argument-booster"  am I making any sense? forgive me if I make mistakes in English... but what I see here... (not in all cases and not either in all members) is just the "desire" to be the one who has the best argument (even if it's the truth or not)

Thanks....


----------



## fenixpollo

After reading my own rantings and libre's encouragements (thanks, libre  ), I realized that I probably seem like a lunatic. I really feel passionately about this issue, as you can tell. I was frustrated, I had other work to do, and I took the discussion too personally. Now that I've cooled off, I wanted to respond to the questions that were raised.





			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> "You're just plain wrong on this one, Fernando. I don't even know where to start. Assimilation. "La Otra Conquista." Find out for yourself."
> I think not. Please, give me the book reference. And, please, start.


*First, let me apologize for sounding combative. I forgot for a moment that you have a different point of view from mine, and that I'm just trying to share mine with you. (note: my comments are in red to highlight them attractively, not to demonstrate that I'm a bloodthirsty Yankee  )*

*Let's start with descriptions of the various European colonizations, which I found at Wikipedia. British , European , Spanish  All of these support my assertion that the discovery and conquest was a brutal event, not worthy of unquestioning pride but of objective consideration. *

*La Otra Conquista that I mentioned is the name of an excellent movie (**link**) about the attempt to convert the indigenous people of Mexico.*
*A brief exerpt from this site* (link):Like many colonial ventures, The Spanish Conquest proved devastating in all ways to the indigenous population. Prior to the Conquest, it is estimated that between 12 and 25 million Indians lived in Mexico. But following the first century after the Conquest, only 1.2 million Indians were left alive in Mexico - a fatality rate of more than 90 percent. Much of the indigenous population was wiped out by diseases introduced by the Spaniards - including smallpox, measles, influenza, typhus and malaria. 


> My point is: was deliberate to kill the people?


 *It was often a strategy of the conquest. Example: Tenochtitlán.* *link*

*In addition, the Europeans treated the Americans as less than human. (example: a letter **(link)** from a friend of Columbus, who talks about raping women, whom he refers to as "bestias").*

*This **link** to a definition of "conquistador" suggests what kind of men they were, with details of how they treated the natives.*
_El conquistador pertenecía, por lo regular, a la ralea de los malditos._
_(C) 2001 Ediciones Dolmen, S.L. Todos los derechos reservados._
*On the other hand, I found this article (**link)* , *in Spanish, about Bartolomé de las Casas, a Dominican friar who came to convert the natives. Just goes to show that many of those trying to convert the Americans to Catholicism had noble motives*


> "the Inquisition was a crime" And you are right. But even the Inquisition did not kill 20,000 people at a time.


 *"Genocide" doesn't only refer to Hitler's attempt to erase a race from the earth. It means (very loosely) the mass murder of members of an ethnic group because they are members of that group. It doesn't matter how many people died or what the motives of their killers were. There are many isolated examples of genocide in the conquest of the Americas.*

*I'm not saying that ALL Europeans (or Spanish) were uniformly out to destroy all the natives. Halfway down this page* (link), *there's a lovely "History of the Tlaxcalans" by John P. Schmal, which demonstrates that the Spaniards worked in harmony with this particular nation, as allies.*

*Here's another* link *(in Spanish) to a site about the downfall of the indigenous people of the Americas.*

*Finally, I agree with you that the discovery was an enormous scientific acheivment. But I want to stress to you that this is only half the story. This event opened wounds that are still un-healed, 500 years later.*



> 3) Religion: You can like or dislike Catholicism, but I do not see the advantages of Mexican religion.
> If your point is that there are not better religions than another I strongly disagree.


 *If you are going to try to convince people that one religion is "better" by criticising the other religions, you will not win any converts but you will make many enemies. I was just trying to suggest that you not try to convert anybody via the Internet.*

*Cordial saludos to Fernando and all of you in foroland who had the masochism to read this.  *


----------



## fenixpollo

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Two examples:
> 1)the English expanded on a French idea of cutting the hair off of natives, in order to collect a bounty paid for any native killed -- thus the supposedly Indian tradition of "scalping."
> 2) After a smallpox (viruela) outbreak among American soldiers, American Army generals gave written orders to give the dead soldiers' infected blankets to natives -- speeding the process of genocide-by-epidemic.


I have discovered that my two assertions are FALSE, and *I must retract them*. I also want to apologize to the Army, and to the French people.

"Scalping" was apparently a native tradition adopted by the French and English, not the other way around.

The "smallpox blankets" myth is based on actual documents from government officials who proposed the idea, but there is no proof that blankets infected with smallpox were ever distributed on purpose (only by accident).

After careful research, I have realized that I had fallen victim to "revisionist" history that, in this case, is based on the dubious work of just one or two historians that are far removed from the events.

I stand corrected.


----------



## Fernando

"Did you mean that it's a pleasure for you to talk with me because I admitted that I was wrong? Or did you mean that it's a pleasure to talk with me because I was gracious when I told you that you were wrong?"

I meant it is pleasure for me to talk with somebody who notices (and admits) he is wrong from time to time.

I intended to recognize your kindness to admit a (minor) mistake. I sincerely apologize.


----------



## Fernando

"I warn you I am not ready to do the same.  "

"When I saw this, I should have realized that this thread would be an exercise in frustration. Fernando, please let me know when you are ready to be open to new ideas."

Once again, I realize that irony and Internet does not marry.


----------



## Fernando

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> *Cordial saludos to Fernando and all of you in foroland who had the masochism to read this.  *



The only masochist component is the disgusting red colour. Your arguments are old but not obvioulsly false. I will (eventually) discuss them.


----------



## Fernando

Fenixpollo, given this is becoming a one on one business, feel free to post your comments and follow the discussion by PM. 

First of all, I would like to comment the utility or not of a discussion whe there are strongly entrenched positions. Even if you do consider that you are not going to convince the other, it is worth enough to express your ideas and convince the 'public'. If one of us is stupid enough to not admit an evident point from the other I am sure the foreros will.

Now, point by point:

1) "not worthy of unquestioning pride but of objective consideration. "

I would not describe my position as "unquestioning pride". I have exposed in my first post all the things that Iberian and other European colonialists did wrong.

2) "A brief exerpt from this site (link):Like many colonial ventures, The Spanish Conquest proved devastating in all ways to the indigenous population. Prior to the Conquest, it is estimated that between 12 and 25 million Indians lived in Mexico. But following the first century after the Conquest, only 1.2 million Indians were left alive in Mexico - a fatality rate of more than 90 percent. Much of the indigenous population was wiped out by diseases introduced by the Spaniards - including smallpox, measles, influenza, typhus and malaria. "

As i said in one of my posts (the veeeeeeeeeery large one) the numbers of the people who died duting the conquest is a matter of discussion. A discussion here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_American_indigenous_peoples;
which can be summarized with this phrase:
"Therefore, most mainstream scholars tend not to use the term "genocide" to describe the overall depopulation of American natives. However, a number of historians, rather than seeing the whole history of European colonization as an one long act of genocide, do cite specific wars and campaigns which were arguably genocidal in intent and effect. Usually included among these are the Pequot War and campaigns waged against tribes in California starting in the 1850s.20"

3) "It was often a strategy of the conquest. Example: Tenochtitlán. link"

In the link the only thing I can see is that Cortés performed a siege on Tenochtitlán, when it happenned what happens in all sieges.

4) "(example: a letter (link) from a friend of Columbus, who talks about raping women, whom he refers to as "bestias")." He says he raped a woman. He does not say the indians were "bestias".  As a matter of fact he says the opposite: "Después de haber dicho la naturaleza y calidad de las bestias, ahora me resta hablar de los hombres." I mean, he talks about animals and then about 'hombres' (indians).

5) About Las Casas, I must remember I spoke about Las Casas. He was a well-known liar, in order to (the noble objective of) defend the indians from the 'encomenderos'. He discussed with Beltrán Díez del Castillo and was heared by the kings. 

6) "Genocide" doesn't only refer to Hitler's attempt to erase a race from the earth. It means (very loosely) the mass murder of members of an ethnic group because they are members of that group. It doesn't matter how many people died or what the motives of their killers were. "

Taking the loose definition of 'genocide' I can not find examples of mass murdering not provoked for a war. I mean, in Otumba battle Cortez killed many indians INTO the battle. Is this a genocide?

7) "There are many isolated examples of genocide in the conquest of the Americas."

I don't find even isolated examples of genocide in the conquest of the Americas. In the Wiki article I quoted before it talks about the Pequot war and some campaigns in California 1850. I do not know in deep these cases. Maybe it could be the case. What I know is that I can not find examples in South America for one simple reason: conquistadores wanted slaves and nobody kill his slaves.

If you want a horrible example of Spanish colonization, quote the way Pizarro tortured Atahualpa in order him to say where he hide the gold. Of course it is not an example of genocide, but an example of barbaric attitude.


----------



## zebedee

Fernando & FenixPollo,

Please continue this discussion by Private Message. It's turned into a one-to-one spiral which is losing its interest to other foreros.
I'm closing this thread to encourage you to continue by PM. If anyone else would like to add anything to this thread, please let me know by PM and I'll re-open it.

Thanks
zeb
Culture Moderator


----------

