I have read autistically amounts of papers about Spanish America. Ask me anything
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
I have read autistic amounts of papers about Spanish America. Ask me anything.
I have read autistically amounts of papers about Spanish America. Ask me anything
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Any book recommendations on the conquest of Aztecs and/or Incas?
All the books about it are revisionist reconstructions based on indiginism or the Spanish accounts which are clearly biased. I would still pick the Spanish accounts as they were less politically charged. There is also a lot more information about Mexico than South America about the topic
>True story of the conquest of New Spain
>Wrecks - Cabeza de Vaca
>General and natural history of the Indies, islands and firm land- Fernández de Oviedo y Valdés
>All the books about it are revisionist reconstructions based on indiginism or the Spanish accounts which are clearly biased.
Almost none of the books are based on indigenism compared to centuries of conquistador chronicles regurgitations, why are you lying?
>Almost none of the books are based on indigenism
I meant that the few indiginist reconstructions are just fantasy. You just have one biased record about thr conquest. Stop being a moron
There are no indigenist "reconstructions" being talked in academia. In fact the correction of conquistador tales have just started in academia less than two decades ago. And none of them exude "indigenism" or any other kid of boogeyman hispanchistas usually complain about.
Why do you believe that the Spanish chronicles were biased. If you say biased it means that you know what really happened instead of the chronicles writers.
That a writer prefer his own teology and culture and that his soldiers win battoes?
That is normal. WhaT shoUld they write to not be biased?
that sacrifices were good?? Spain did an enormous work in America and for being the XVI century they were pioneers in Human Rigths, Morality and Respect. Just compare it to other powers and their colonies 300 years.
In that time witches were burnt in northern Europe or 400 years later the USA was still hanging blacks on trees.
Spain even stopped all colonization in 1530 to debate during 2 years about the morality of it.
What Spain did was massive incredible. It is obvious that a 5% could be abusers of indians but even today we see the same everyday anywhere
not OP, but I wouldn't call them biased, but "rhetorical", as all historians were back then. Basically, they would form a discourse, in form of a thesis and would relate information to confirm that discourse. For example, Bartolomé de las Casas, exaggerated some stuff in his Brevissima to prove the conquerors were destroying the Indies. He also toned down some stuff in his Apologética to prove Indians were more pious than pagans. Gomara in his Hispania Victrix wanted to paint Cortés as a new Caesar, and that didn't rub so good with the King. Antonio de Herrera, despite being a very good narrator, wanted to show how spaniards civilized the barbarians, so his text went down that line.
Remember critical profesional history wasn't invented until the XVIIIth century, back then, History was more of a rhetorical field for the high classes to insert in their discourses and to teach princes good manners.
Is it true about the mayans? Did kukulcan was Enki from mesapatamia? And also, the pharaoh had a aztec gourd buried in the pyramids. HOW?
Did the Aztecs and Incans know of each other?
There were trade routes throughout all of America which explains why some crops were present all throughout the continent
>Why were the Spaniards such mustache-twirling villains during their reign over Latin Americans?
It depends where and when. I would say Columbus was pretty cartoonishly evil by our standards and even to those of the Spaniards back then.
Cortés and Pizarro are a mix bag and are overly villified nowadays.
The Spanish crown was always very benevolent, and the institution natives tended to like the most, which becomes clear in the wars of independence, but their power was limited to the large administrative cities.
By the end of the XVIII century Spanish rule was a lot better than what followed it after independence.
At the end the conquest was an incredible shock to the natives due several factors, but it is important to note that the people that overthrew the Inca and Aztec empires were mostly the native allies who gained a lot of power and independence after the conquest.
>The Spanish crown was always very benevolent, and the institution natives tended to like the most
Why?
>Why?
Because for the crown the question of the natives was theological, not economical like the Encomenderos. Every time there was a discussion about the natives the crown sided with them specially at the beginning (laws of Burgos, Leyes Nuevas, Phillip the II refusing to force them to learn Spanish, etc).
It is also important to note that the crown also guaranteed a lot of natives a lot of independence and they had a lot of tax exemptions in exchange of paying a tiny tribute , which got abolished once the independence war finishes.
In fact, if you read Charles Darwin you will see a lot of the natives telling him that they miss the king of Spain. The process of hispanization and the large empobrishment of natives it is more of a XIX century thing than one that spawn in the XVI century, as a lot of natives had high positions of powers (Caciques, aristocrats and some very wealthy monopolists and merchants) in the colonial period.
I see
thanks
Cope
My last name is Ayala
How based am I
Why were the Spaniards such mustache-twirling villains during their reign over Latin Americans?
They weren't
They weren't, they were just actively larping as Romans and believed in the righteous, benevolent rule of a class of well-educated aristocrats over the more laissez-faire approach of the Anglos. The problem was that they were trying to exert central control and micromanage their far-flung colonies in an era where instant communication was non-existent and transportation moved at a snail's pace. Spain issued a ton of edicts in the colonial period, so many that were impossible to enforce, meaning that laws were only selectively enforced, such that a tradition of rule of law could never really develop.
did you read actual historiography or just meme American books? I can basically tell by how you answer the next question:
What were the territorial divisions and subdivisions of the empire in America?
>What were the territorial divisions and subdivisions of the empire in America?
It depends on the period. At the beginning the division followed the traditional Spanish system
>Kingdom (Viceroys representing the power there and in some cases capitancies acted in a similar way)
>Audiencias
>Cabildos
>Alcaldes
With some novel components such as the native republics who had a lot of independence removing clerical matters and that negotiated their tribute with the audiencia (which is why the Audiencias had more power in areas with a lot of natives such as Quito).
The Borbon kings introduced the institution of the Intendencia which decentralized the administration into different provinces that had a lot more autonomy (an independent treasury) and then these intendias from time to time had to transfer part of their treasury to the areas of interest of the crown such as Montevideo or Buenos Aires who were largely subsidized by the silver of Potosí.
based, sorry for doubting you mr. OP. You keep encountering people in this page the insist that Capitanías Generales were a thing
Np, I have seen a lot of lies here
Do you think the Norte Chico civilization was G2a Anatolian males building flat topped pyramids exactly like they did in other G2a areas such as pre-Semitic Sumeria or Sardinia and that could possibly explain mtDNA X as opposed to the Solutrean Hypothesis?
Would this explain why the Spanish saw Caucasoids in the Andes and possibly why the Easter Island moai (which we now know to be carved by "South Americans") depict physical characteristics of Caucasian (ie Anatolian) temple building theocrats from the mainland?
Why was Uruguay/Argentina so heavily colonized while other areas remained mostly indigenous?
They were lightly colonized in fact. The main focus of Spanish immigration was always Mexico.
They are less indigenous due multiple reasons
>Smaller native population
>Very high birthrates of whites (8 kids per women)
>Abundance of food which lowered child mortality
Also Argentinians have a much higher native component than white Americans for example. Gauchos did mix extensively with the natives, specially the more you approach the northern provinces.
You also have to take into account that Argentina is whiter than Chile because it recieved a lot more immigrants in the XIX century due the economic potential of the region and the boom of the beef industry. Without this immigration wave Argentina would look similar to Chile in terms of demographics (probably fewer pure natives as the Mapuches were very feisty and concentrate mostly in Chile)
Iam going to bed. If anyone has more questions just write them down and I will answer when I wake up
threads die in the night
How long did it take for Mexico and Peru to become majority Hispanic, as opposed to majority indigenous? How long do you think the old religion held out in occupied areas?
It was probably majority Hispanic by the 1700s. The friar Bartolome De Las Casas wrote that much of the native population died off during the mid-1600s. After this their population never really recovered until recent times and even then there's no way to tell exactly what the demographic makeup of Mexico was immediately after Spanish settlement.
why are we still here, just to suffer?
why is LULZ obsessed with colonial Spain?
Because it's kino. English and French America was the most boring shit.
Where can I read about Spanish colonial administration besides just the regular boring conquest of the Inca and Aztec?
not OP, but if you know Spanish, "Manual del derecho indiano" by Dougnac is where to start, he basically outlines how everything worked and how it transformed through time. It is a boring read though, because it is intended to teach university students how the empire in America was run and not a narrative history of things that happened.