Did the Spaniards really commit genocide of the natives or is this just some revisionist new age meme...

Did the Spaniards really commit genocide of the natives or is this just some revisionist new age meme? I was under the impression that most of them died from disease and there was never a targeted persecution of indigenous peoples.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Becerrillo
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valladolid_debate
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>I was under the impression that most of them died from disease
yes
>and there was never a targeted persecution of indigenous peoples.
no

they were cheap labor and many of em died in the silver and gold mines

but again the whole world was doing the same shit at this time

No, it’s all just the same butthurt Chicano/La Raza fags that whine about Columbus too.

>Did the Spaniards really commit genocide of the natives
There are still the majority in every Spanish speaking country bar the caribean islands,Uruguay,Argentina and Spain.That should answer your question

the Conquistadors were unimaginably ruthless cunts:
"During the course of the half-hour-long battle, Becerrillo alone killed thirty-three of the native attackers. The reputation of the killer dog spread; he became more feared than the men who he fought alongside.[5] The dog was accomplished at finding and instilling fear in the Indians and able to do the work of fifty soldiers; he was fed the same rations as the men and paid a wage.[3]

Another story finds the Spanish conquistadors outside the capitol of Caparra, where a group of Indians had been captured and subdued. While waiting for Ponce de León to arrive from the capitol, the troops amused themselves by harassing the captives. Salazar gave an old Indian woman a folded piece of paper and informed her that it was a letter that was to be carried to the governor- if she refused, she would be fed to the dogs. The frightened woman accepted in the hopes of surviving, but after she turned and began down the road Salazar released Becerrillo and commanded him to take her. As she was charged by the dog, the old woman dropped to her knees and prayed "Please, my Lord Dog. I am on my way to take this letter to Christians. I beg you, my Lord Dog, please do not hurt me."[6] According to witnesses, Becerrillo stopped short and regarded the woman intently. He sniffed at the woman and the paper in her hands, before turning away, lifting a leg, and marking her with urine. He stood by as the woman returned unharmed to the Spanish troops. Upon his arrival, Ponce de León was informed of what had occurred. He commanded the troops, "Free her and send her safely back to her people. Then let us leave this place for now. I will not permit the compassion and forgiveness of a dog to outshine that of a true Christian."[7]"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Becerrillo

A dog pissing on an old lady is not a genocide though.Dogs have been used for war and hunting for ages.

know many Taino do ya?

Tainos were simply outfuck.Either way Tainos tried to peach the Spaniards against the Caribes which gave Columbus an a bunch of slave traders to go full berserker on any native in the island.Also diseases

>using dogs to tear apart old women isn't that big a deal.

that's a Toledo edge you got there Sancho...

>Did the Spaniards really commit genocide of the natives

To put it bluntly, no. There was no attempt by the Spanish to wipe out the indigenous populations of South America. They did confiscated huge amounts of gold to ship back to Spain, and they also forcibly converted the indigenous to Christianity, but neither of those things are genocide, just normal conquest things.

The dog didn't tear here appart and the story is a legend.Either way brutality=/=genocide.

>Tainos tried to peach the Spaniards
we speak English around here paella muncher....

Whole cities were razed, thousands killed, survivors enslaved to die in the mines and haciendas, women raped and sold as sex slaves.
They genocided different populations but the natives as a whole survived

brutality + disappearance of whole ethnic groups = genocide.

to be fair the tapas munchers probably didn't intend to destroy the native peoples of the Caribbean since Spanish colonization of the New World was just one big bloody cluster-fuck for most of the 16th century.

well at least the dog was a good Christian.

No they did not wage campaigns of extermination. They needed the slave labor.

At the same time, the Ottomans were doing to same thing to coastal communities in southern Europe. Burning cities and taking slaves were pretty standard aspects of warfare during this period I'm afraid.

"The natives" is as useful a grouping as "the whites." They killed a lot of individual tribes, but they never wiped all of them out.

Genocide has to be on purpose.If a fucking tiny tribe dissapeared due smallpox it is not a genocide.The spaniards never intended on cleasing the natives

good point....there never was the intent. I concede the point. mind-boogling amounts of brutality yes, but not technically genocide.

Depends on the place.

Where there was a high native population density (Mexico, Central America, Peru, Bolivia, places with advanced agricultural empires) the Spaniards just took over the local native infraestructure and population and used them to their benefit (not unlike what the British did in India).

Where native population density was low (Cuba, Caribbean, Argentina, Uruguay, places with nomadic hunter gatherers), the Spanish just genocided them or displaced them.

I don't think the British would have done anything differently if they had taken control of Mexico or Peru. The natives in these areas were just too many to genocide them.

It just so happened North America had no advanced empires and low population density making it more suitable for European settlement rather than encomienda style exploitation.

Brutality was common in warfare.America was conquered.That's about it.Sacking village and raping was done in Germany,France,the Netherlands through the XVI and XVII century as well.After the conquest natives were treated as european peasants and labourers

The natives in Uruguay and Argentina were genocided after independence

>After the conquest natives were treated as european peasants and labourers

where in Europe in the 16th century did they have something like the encomienda and casta systems? We have numerous primary source documents from Spanish royal and church officials who expressed shock, disgust and horror at what the Conquistadors were doing.

Serfdom was not abolish in Catalonia until the XVIII for example.Peasants had to pay their lords if they wanted to leave the land and the lords were allowed to rape their wifes and daughters and violence against peasants was common everywhere

After the conquest natives were treated as european peasants and labourers"

Wow, being so biased, this codex describes the burning alive or many indians for not gathering enough tribute to a spanish encomendero. They were slaves abused and worked to death. Even the people of zempoala the first city to ally with the spanish ended up as their slaves in sugar cane plantations after the battle was over

>Trained man-killer dog had more pity than conquistadors

Damn

Bartholome de las Casas sure fucked up.

>Arriving as one of the first European settlers in the Americas, he initially participated in, but eventually felt compelled to oppose the atrocities committed against the Native Americans by the Spanish colonists.
>In 1515, he reformed his views, gave up his Indian slaves and encomienda, and advocated, before King Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, on behalf of rights for the natives.
>In his early writings, he advocated the use of African slaves instead of Natives in the West-Indian colonies; consequently, criticisms have been leveled at him as being partly responsible for the beginning of the Transatlantic slave trade.
>Later in life, he retracted those early views as he came to see all forms of slavery as equally wrong

It probably helped that one of the evil gods of the Aztec pantheon was the god of dogs.

The thing is that subhumans invaded America and started replacing superior beings. How is this not a tragedy?

No, just as in the USA, part of the natives were erradicated by the early colonists and part of them after independence when the frontier was pushed south.

Native groups in these areas were too few, nomadic and too hostile to get along with the Spaniards, clashes were almost instant.

The Charrua and the Querandi, for example, were almost entirely erradicated by the Spaniards early on.

Not genocide in the sword sense of the world but genocide more like enslave, breed out , their culture,religion, language , knowleadge almost wipe out and somehow make your descendants still being proud of having 50% of that people. Also they were kinda cruel.
Kinda like europe in a few years

Dont worry your little indio head about it, we will be minority soon enough and with the fall of europe we have no escape

Have you heard about the spanish black legend?

That should answer your question, user.

>"You know I think indios are kinda being treated too brutaly why don't we use niggers I mean fuck niggers right? "
This is the kind of compation that i expect /pol/ to have

Morally abhorrent behaviour doesn't become any less abhorrent because other people did it too. Some of the Catholic clergy at the time criticised the behaviour of the colonisers so it's not as they were incapable of thinking morally.

>Some of the Catholic clergy at the time criticised the behaviour of the colonisers so it's not as they were incapable of thinking morally.

Some people ttoday think there are more than two genders, it doesn't make them right.

Are you saying the rape and enslavement of the American natives was morally good and its detractors wrong?

Yes.

Ok have fun being an edgelord.

Catholics murdered over 30,000,000 in Mexico, Latin and South America. Stop saying "Spaniards" and start saying "Catholics".

There weren't 30 million people in all of the Americas combined.

Mexico had 7 million people and Peru 5 million.
Combined, they had more than the rest of the Americas together.

mexico , latin and south america are not catholic themselves ?

Good post

There perished under pope Julian 200,000 Christians: and by the French massacre, on a moderate calculation, in 3 months, 100,000. Of the Waldenses there perished 150,000; of the Albigenses, 150,000. There perished by the Jesuits in 30 years only 900,000. The Duke of Alva destroyed by the common hangman alone, 36,000 persons; the amount murdered by him is set down by Grotius at 100,000! There perished by the fire, and tortures of the Inquisition in Spain, Italy, and France 150,000. … In the Irish massacres there perished 150,000 Protestants!

To sum up the whole, the Roman Catholic church has caused the ruin, and destruction of a million and a half of Moors in Spain; nearly two millions of Jews South America in Europe. In Mexico, and , including the islands of Cuba and St. Domingo, fifteen millions of Indians, in 40 years, fell victims to popery. And in Europe, and the East Indies, and in America, 50 millions of Protestants, at least, have been murdered by it!

Thus the church of Rome stands before the world, “the woman in scarlet, on the scarlet colored Beast.” A church claiming to be Christian, drenched in the blood of sixty-eight millions, and five hundred thousand human beings!

-- W. C. Brownlee, Letters in the Roman Catholic controversy, 1834, pp. 347-348.

Same as Islam. Convert, or die.

No, they were not Catholics before the Catholics got there.

>Did the Spaniards really commit genocide of the natives or is this just some revisionist new age meme?

Yes the majority died from disease but allegations of harsh treatment and yes genocide were existent right from the start, see Las Casas.

I tend to double Catholic kill counts, as Catholilcs deny them altogether.

Here's the evidence for 15,000,000 in Mexico, Cuba and South America.

Note the total kill count, and this was centuries ago, was over 68,000,000

Before disease and conquest Mexico had around 25 million people and all of Central and South America combined had about 45 million.

>assblasted protestants derailing the thread
everytime

Nothing edgy about it, they were raping and enslaving each other regardless.

The European rape and enslavement of the Amerindians was at least a constructive process that resulted in their encivilment. Yes I just made that word up, you're welcome.

Massimo Livi-Bacci, Concise History of World Population History 2d (1996)

Mexico: Population fell from 6.3M (1548) to 1.9M (1580) to 1M (1605)
Peru: Pop. fell from 1.3M (1572) to 600,000 (1620)
Canada: from 300,000 (ca. 1600) to < 100,000 (ca. 1800)
USA: from 5M (1500) to 60,000 (ca. 1800)

>(1548)
You do realise the conquest took place before that?

Add twice the number if you wish, it's still far off from 60 million total.

Why would I do any of that when I have actual estimated numbers?

>Catholics killed 60 trillion innocent rural and posh-urban protestant retards, APOLOGIZE!

Although I should add I put forth 45 million for Latin America, not 60 for the Americas.

>USA: from 5M (1500) to 60,000 (ca. 1800)

You don't have to apologize, papist.

You just have to pay.

>Catholics deny some deaths so as a logical inference I should double the estimates

This is a result of Pr*testants letting retards get into reach of a Bible without a flogging

>PAY

Pity about the indios and the moors but who cares about pr*ts lmao

This guy gets it

>Pity about the indios and the moors but who cares about pr*ts lmao

why i should pity the moor that behave exactly in the same way for much longeur time , until their conquest by christian.

>until their conquest by christian.

Because of this

Pr*ts are the incorrigible essence of all that is foul about wh*Tes

you like to blame the white , but without the white their would not have been modern world :(

what do you mean by "modern world"?

the industrial world , which lead to an improving of condition of life , the advancement of modern medecine, modern science.

Wrong.
Actually Amerindians had a higher development rate compared to europeans. Also a single Amerindian crop managed to sustain 1/4 of european demographic increment between 1700-1900.

It's obvious Amerindian genocide was a tragedy and the upcoming extinction of those subhumans called "eurangutans" will do better for humanity as a whole.

>Codex Kingsborough
Do you know that that part of this codex was made to condemn in the Council of the Indies the brutality of certain Spanish encomenderos towards the natives?
I can even read that in that image they were denouncing a governor named Anton.

here read: this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valladolid_debate
> The Valladolid debate (1550-1551) was the first moral debate in European history to discuss the rights and treatment of colonized people by colonizers.

yes but it never happend and at the end white people bring the world into the modern world. WHich nationality are you from ?

>revisionism
Having a higher development rate is obviously better, as it's a consequence of better potential.

Try again.

maybe but in the end the result say that the white christian european civilisation created the modern world. You can not rewrite history saying than amerindian would have done better because they did not. The fact that they increased faster than european is good but in the end that does not change current history and what european bring to the world.

it wasn't the intention to completely eradicate the populations of the new world, but the early colonist's practices (specifically in latin america) had clear and undeniable consequences on he native americans that would essentially end any native hegemony over the continent
the slave driven economy in early spanish america was brutal, with draconian penalties for light infractions, there were hideous killings of innocent peoples in response to small scale rebellions, and overall there was little care for the value of life of the natives

Brootal

>revisionism is more important than higher development rate
Nope. Amerindian higher development rate shows a racial superiority compared to europeans. Revisionism from past resources and knowledge that was invented before yet reaching the bronze age in almost 2 times the years Amerindians spent to reach it, is pathetic and inferior.

It's the same as comparing a trained chimp warning you about a jaguar against a genius. The same conclusion resembles Amerindian superiority.

Injuns never reached the bronze age as a whole and accomplished less overall. Low iq too.

Wrong. Amerindians reached the bronze age in less time compared to european in South-America, even then they traded across the Pacific Ocean with copper and bronze tools and weapons.

>iq
>modern comparison
So you agree with Amerindian superiority? Then, if you want to compare both ethnic groups, let's genocide 90% of eurangutan population, kill elites and middle-class, assimilate the rest of the priviledge class, and throw the rest of the low class to toxic mines with a mortality rate of 60+%, while mixing eurangutans with their nigger cousins, don't you agree?

maybe they were late neolithic or early chalcolithic if you want to be really generous.

amerindians are nigger tier and inferior.

Try again with some facts. Amerindian bronze tool making and weapon spread through all the andean zones, even reaching the same ammount or more ammount of area in less time compared to europeans even though they had less time to develop, the bigger demographic densities were on the mountainous side and the coastal zones were a literal hell for agrarian settlements. Amerindian superiority is self-evident.

Try again, chimp.

amerindians having lower iqs and having never reached the bronze age as a whole are facts.

be sure to thank the white man, subhuman.

>modern comparison
So you agree with Amerindian superiority? Then, if you want to compare both ethnic groups, let's genocide 90% of eurangutan population, kill elites and middle-class, assimilate the rest of the priviledge class, and throw the rest of the low class to toxic mines with a mortality rate of 60+%, while mixing eurangutans with their nigger cousins, don't you agree?
>bronze age
So you deny the consensus?

Amerindian superior development rate are a consequence of racial superiority against eurangutans. Amerindians are superior in every way possible except maybe being pigs and carrying more diseases than eurangutans. That's history for your brainlet, subhuman.

injuns have lower iqs than whites and are generally worse off regardless of life factors, like blacks. this is a fact. they're just dumber, they accomplished less, and they're losers overall. such a pathetic race, too bad the spaniards didn't wipe them all out like God intended.

>So you deny the consensus?
i am eager to hear all about how those illiterate, loin cloth wearing stone age savages were all in the bronze age.

>development rate
From stone age to Western Civilization is impressive sure.

>Actually Amerindians had a higher development rate compared to europeans.
lol at this meme
Everyone knows that Amerindian development was kickstarted by the African explorers who established the Olmec civilization.

Wrong. To the bronze age, the rest if post-genocidal and cuasi-destruction of culture.

>modern comparison
You want to compare post-genocidal mongrels and natives? Then, if you want to compare both ethnic groups, let's genocide 90% of eurangutan population, kill elites and middle-class, assimilate the rest of the priviledge class, and throw the rest of the low class to toxic mines with a mortality rate of 60+%, while mixing eurangutans with their nigger cousins, don't you agree?

>keeps denying the consensus
America belongs to the Amerindians and Amerindians had a higher development rate compared to europeans, , even though they had more disadvantages compared to europeans.
Thus Amerindian superiority is a historical fact.

Try again with some facts, subhuman.

>higher development rate
>culture only exists in the first place because it was introduced to them by pre-Columbian African explorers
lol

So you agree with Amerindian superiority?

post """genocide""" mongrels are the ones with higher iqs.

>America belongs to the Amerindians and Amerindians had a higher development rate compared to europeans
still waiting on that proof for all injuns being in the bronze age.

>eurangutan mongrels are superior to the Amerindians who achieved eurangutan "civilization" spending half the time.
Amerindian superiority has been demonstrated
through all history. Amerindian genocide will never be forgotten.
>keeps denying consensus
Archaeological facts will never be erased. Amerindian higher development rate is a historical fact. Deal with it, monkey.

No I believe that literal niggers are superior to Amerindians.

Amerindian superiority to europeans is a historical fact. Africans being superior to europeans is self-evident and even all kinds of people agree with it.

All kinds of comparisons put eurangutans as subhumans. Truly an inferior race.

kek they never even achieved civilization en masse. they didn't even have knowledge of their ancient history until white people started studying the past and writing books for them, after teaching them to read of course. that was very generous of the white man.

still no proofs of all injuns being bronze age people.

Apefricans are probably one of the few races even more inferior than amerindians who are already well behind whites. Even still, they've managed to do more for the West than useless indians ever did.

>achieved civilization in masse
>knowledge of ancient history
>all bronze age
Compared to whom/what year?
Wrong. Africans and Amerindians are superior to europeans. All kinds of comparisons have put eurangutans as subhumans. Try again, chimpo.

This is giving me a boner

>Wrong. Africans and Amerindians are superior to europeans.
at dying and living in poverty maybe. can't think of anything else.

Having a superior development rate and replacing an inferior race: the eurangutan one.