Why were the Spanish people such cunts during the colonization period? I am glad they declined in power over time...

>Why were the Spanish people such cunts during the colonization period?

FUCK YOU you uncultured retard

The spanish did everything right in America. They brought culture, protection and saved the mayans from the tyranny and savagery of the aztecs.
If you for a single moment believe the US education system that tries to turn away the attention from the indian genocide by saying "t-the spanish killed the aztecs!" just look at how many direct descendants of native americans still exists in ex-spanish territories to see the bullshit of it

>Only three men

Yeah sure

I am not arguing who was badder, if the Aztecs or someone else, I'm saying there's savagery EVERY WHERE and this bullshit "the Aztecs were the most savage of all the nations in this world!" is dumb shit rhetoric.

I'm not American, I'm Argentinian.

Also,
>Not understanding the difference between an exceptional case of torture of three individuals, compared to daily ritualized sacrifices of thousands of victims (and ritualized wars organized with the sole purpose of capturing more sacrifice victims) to appease more than a dozen different Gods, each of them with specific sacrifice methods involving live victims getting flayed, bloodletting, getting their beating hearts cut out, and so on

>hurrrrrr le aztecs were barbarians

>posts a single incident of brutality that has absolutely nothing to do with the american colonization

aztec-history.com/aztec-sacrifice.html

please, you only just need to bring the spanish inquisition so that you can be declared an official retard of Veeky Forums

All papists are murderous cunts.

Ratzinger was a 10/10 pope but normies, focused only of the fucking hippie that is Benedict XVI, who is basically turning Christianity into a joke, will never know

>please, you only just need to bring the spanish inquisition so that you can be declared an official retard of Veeky Forums

Redpill me, senpai.

bit suprised you're comparing three dudes getting executed to the aztec practice of keeping tribes unce control purely for the purpose of sacrifice.

I wish the Spanish had finished the job.

it was impressive, to say the least, one of the most modern institutions that represented the foundation of procedural law that introduced fundamental elements that still persist to this day, mainly the secret of summary (everything must be written down, not a single detail must be left undocumented) and the division of the process in phases (preliminar- instruction - trial and its divisions)
The Spanish inquisition (it is really important to differentiate it from the medieval inquistion) worked with very specific crimes that only affected heretic christians, more precisely converted jews who claimed to be christians just take advantage of the system and still practiced judaism while mocking the church. They expanded their competencies but some intersting things to note are:
They were incredibly sceptic of denounces of witchcraft, having solid basses of science to demonstrate certain phenomena before ever jumping to conclusions
Most of the books that were prohibited by the church in the rest of Europe were legal for the spanish inquistion, such as the works of Descartes
The jail conditions for the convict were much better than for regular civil convicts. It is worth mentioning how revolutionary was that the accused was given a lawyer to work for his cause, although this lawyer was obligated to cease his defense if he his client confessed his guilt
The employment of torture was ridiculously minimal. The church wasn't allowed to cause bledding by any means and such the only torture ever used was the water one, and only under very exceptional cases when they had undeniable proof of the guilt of the convict, less than 1% of all the cases ever recorded.
This happened because their system didn't allow a verdict without eh confession of the convict. This alongside the accused not knowing the cause he was being accused for until the beginning of the trial were their two undeniable flaws of the institution, but the rest is exemplary
Read Henry Kamen for details

>I'm argentinian

I take it you go one of those shit left-wing schools that are the absolute death of our country you stupid fucking porteño jew.

Literally kill yourself.

>defending Spain imperialism
>left-wing schools

you are retarded

>implying that isn't a reasonable way for a culture to respond to high treason

For some reason I tough you were OP.

If it bothers you you are welcomed to get your ass the fuck off our cities and back to your disease riddled literal mudhut.

Vos y tu thread son una vergüenza flaco.

Why does every evaluation of the Spanish in the Americas boil down to how bad the Aztecs were? What about that whole other continent, and all those other societies?

Anyway, from what I've read the Spanish monarchy wasn't so bad and actually tried to protect natives, but the colonists themselves were basically subhuman scum who'd revolt if they weren't allowed to enslave and destroy everything in sight. So if you're going to be pissed at somebody, aim it at white Mexicans and others Hispanics, not Spain itself.

To be fair to the Spanish, smallpox did the vast majority of the damage.

They were monsters, but even if they weren't, that part of the world was going to get fucked.

People often forget how some diseases also transmitted from america to Spain too

Most other cultures were treated fairly well. Even with all the bonobo-style assimilation, a lot of the small tribes are still around.

A lot of the killing of natives happened after the fall of the Spanish empire, by people who were themselves half-breeds, and mostly against the tribes that hadn't yet been assimilated

Because Spanish people ARE cunts. Go to Spain for a few day and see for yourself.

¿Alguna negrita argentina que me pueda presentar?

>Imagine if the fucking Aztecs had Western technology to practice their sacrifices on an industrial scale.
What? Something like pic related?
Or this?

Moctezuma asked deputy governor Pedro de Alvarado for permission to celebrate Toxcatl (an Aztec festivity in honor of Tezcatlipoca, one of their main gods). But after the festivities had started, Alvarado interrupted the celebration, killing almost everyone present at the festival, men, women, and children alike.

>"Any of these things would have been enough to cause the rebellion, not to mention all of them together. But the principal one was that a few days after Cortes left to confront Narváez, it became time for a festival the Mexicas wanted to celebrate in their traditional way. . . . They begged Pedro de Alvarado to give them his permission, so [the Spaniards] wouldn't think that they planned to kill them. Alvarado consented provided that there were no sacrifices, no people killed, and no one had weapons."
(...)
>"While the Mexica gentlemen were dancing in the temple yard of Vitcilopuchtli [Huitzilopochtli], Pedro de Alvarado went there. Whether on [the basis of] his own opinion or in an agreement decided by everyone, I don't know, but some say he had been warned that the Indian nobles of the city had assembled to plot the mutiny and the rebellion, which they later carried out; others, believe that [the Spaniards] went to watch them perform this famous and praised dance, and seeing how rich they were and wanting the gold the Indians were wearing, he [Alvarado] covered each of the entrances with ten or twelve Spaniards and went inside with more than fifty [Spaniards], and without remorse and lacking any Christian piety, they brutally stabbed and killed the Indians, and took what they were wearing".
- Francisco López de Gómara, Second Volume of the General History of the Indies

or perhaps this?

>"Guzman's troops everywhere committed terrible depredations. The first province he marched through was Mechoacan, the inhabitants of which still possessed abundance of gold, though not of the finest quality, as it contained a considerable alloy of silver, for which reason Guzman compelled them to contribute a larger amount. Casonci, the principal cazique of the province, boldly refused to give him so great a quantity of gold as he demanded, wherefore Guzman ordered him to be tortured, by pouring hot oil over his feet; but as the unfortunate cazique, notwithstanding all the torments he endured, still remained firm to his purpose, he was ordered to be hung."
- Bernal Díaz del Castillo True History of the Conquest of New Spain Chapter CXCVII

>All the other tribes of Central Mexico united against them.
Name 1 (one) """"tribe"""" who fought against the Aztecs other than the Tlaxcalans and the Totonacs.

>The Aztecs deserved every single thing that happened to them. it was the most savage, disgusting, fucked up culture that ever tainted planet Earth.

HOW
HARD
IS
TO
UNDERSTAND
THAT
THEY
SACRIFICED
THE
WARRIORS
WHO
WERE
SUPPOSED
TO
DIE IN
BATTLE
IN SIMILIAR (IF NOT WORSE) WAYS
HOW MANY MEN DIED IN THE CHRISTIAN BATTLEFIELDS OF EUROPE?
MANY RIGHT?
WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND IT WAS A DIFFERENT CULTURE???

Pic related is from a Totonac shrine and here's an account of the city of Xocotlan:

>"Our route now lay across the territory of the township Xocotlan. We sent before us two Indians of Sempoalla to the cazique, to acquaint him of our approach, and beg of him to give us an hospitable reception. As the inhabitants of this district were subject to Motecusuma, everything wore a different aspect, and we marched forward with the utmost precaution and in close array. For the rest, we were as much pleased with this spot as with many a Spanish town, on account of the numerous and beautifully whitewashed balconies, the dwellings of the caziques, and the elevated temples wholly built of stone and[Pg 140] lime. We, therefore, called it Castilblanco, which name it still retains; for a Portuguese soldier, who was among our troops, assured us, the place was very like the town of Casteloblanco in Portugal."
(...)
>"One certain spot in this township I never shall forget, situated near the temple. Here a vast number of human skulls were piled up in the best order imaginable,—there must have been more than 100,000; I repeat, more than 100,000. In like manner you saw the remaining human bones piled up in order in another corner of the square; these it would have been impossible to count. Besides these, there were human heads hanging suspended from beams on both sides. Three papas stood sentinel on this place of skulls, for which purpose, it was told us, they were particularly appointed.[21]"
>"Similar horrible sights we saw towards the interior of the country in every township, and even in Tlascalla."
- Bernal Díaz del Castillo True History of the Conquest of New Spain Chapter LXI

>diseases
>disease(s)
literally a bug infection and syphilis (whose origins are still debated) compared to this:

bubonic plague
chicken pox
cholera
common cold
diphtheria
influenza
leprosy
malaria
measles
scarlet fever
smallpox
typhoid
typhus
whooping cough
yellow fever
yaws

pegate un tiro hermano.

>"they were supossed to die on the battlefield so is totally ok to torture and sacrifice them to our shit gods"
>"christcucks fought wars too you know, they were literally equal to aztecs"

>sources in english

You sound mad.

>torture
other than being sedated and having their heart taken, how were they tortured?
did they had their bellies or feet poured into hot oil like the Spaniards did with every lord who didn't tell them where was more gold? or was it like pic related?

>You sound mad.
just like the people here who don't even bother to google basic stuff of the Aztec religion

Because the Aztecs sacrificed hundreds of crying children to summon rain.

Fuck the Aztecs in the "muh poor Aztecs" apologists

The inquisition is a meme from the 18th century and the aztecs would force subjugated tribes to give them people for their sacrifices, it wasn't always soldiers.

You should actually research the things you shitpost about.

>SACRIFICED THE WARRIORS
>The "Atlcahualo" was celebrated from the 12th of February until the 3rd of March. Dedicated to the Tlaloque, this veintena involved the sacrifice of many children on sacred mountaintops. The children were beautifully adorned, dressed in the style of Tlaloc and the Tlaloque. On litters strewn with flowers and feathers; surrounded by dancers, they were transported to a shrine and their hearts would be pulled out by priests. If, on the way to the shrine, these children cried, their tears were viewed as signs of imminent and abundant rains. Every Atlcahualo festival, seven children were sacrificed in and around Lake Texcoco in the Aztec capital. They were either slaves or the second-born children of nobles.
>The festival of Tozoztontli (24 March – 12 April) similarly involved child sacrifice. During this festival, offerings were made in caves. The flayed skins of sacrificial victims that had been worn by priests for the last twenty days were taken off and placed in these dark, magical caverns.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tlaloc

Go fuck yourself.

>the aztecs would force subjugated tribes to give them people for their sacrifices, it wasn't always soldiers.
cite your fucking claim

>Because the Aztecs sacrificed hundreds of crying children to summon rain.
name 1 (one) archaeological site were hundreds of sacrificed children were found because having a bishop say that 20 000 children were sacrificed annually in Tenochtitlan does not compute with the 70 children found in the Main Temple of the city

>this veintena involved the sacrifice of many children
still better than doing it for gold

archivo.eluniversal.com.mx/cultura/2014/mexicas-canibalismo-inah-979798.html

the article doesn't even say that children were found in the Temple

Yeah what with the forced labor camps in the Rubber Boom where the rivers were choked with corpses. Nice Christian shit. All those associates of early West Indies colonists talking about mass torture and gang rape and limb severing were full of shit, just like their references to Carib war canoes larger than what the Spaniards were packing, eh?

For fucks sake we have the records from the colonial perspective, it ain't like this is historically vague territory.

>Why were the Spanish people such cunts during the colonization period?
The dumb fucks thought they were still cleaning out the Iberian Peninsula, early on plaza temple complexes were explicitly referred to as "Mosques".

>Aztecs were the most savage of all the nations in this world!" is dumb shit rhetoric.
^This.

What in the blue fuck are the religious wars of Europe if not mass community sacrifice under theological auspices? What about the world wars in terms of carnage scale? It's really starting to sound like the Aztec hate around here is pawned off by salty blancos trying to justify their perceived superiority to an equally fierce cultural complex and/or Christians triggered by polytheism.

>They were incredibly sceptic of denounces of witchcraft
Spain wasn't the only operator of witch trials. Occult materials and knowledge WERE lost. Spain benefited from a cultural homogeneity that the fractured states didn't have but the Basques got fucked, again.

Again, it's weak tea justification for literal depopulation.

Thank you.

Top zozzle, this is what we're dealing with folks.
*
RE: Aztecs, ain't nobody saying they were fluffy puppy dogs but they're also certainly not any less human or more cruel than literally every other population of H. sapiens sapiens lumbering around. I repeat, the Spaniards and to some extent the Portuguese, for some reason thought they were still fighting Moors.

The Aztecs did the same shit to other natives and would've done the same shit to the Spaniards if they could've, you anti-white brainwashed faggot.

Because the civilizations were intac.

>^This
>zozzle
>trip
its time to go back

>Being anti colonisation is anti white
>Brain washed for disliking genocide
Maybe you should fuck off

He did dun goofed a lot though, he wasn't just some innocent regular guy.

THIS is the only thing the spaniards did wrong

Why is it wrong?

The vast majority of aztec sacrifices were war prisoners that would have been otherwise killed on the spot in europe.Also, it's not like the europeans didn't get involved in a bunch of stupid wars and killings over religion themselves, and killed each other in equally barbaric ways.

Are soliders in a war some innocent regular guy

>soliders in a war

it wasn't just soldiers though, also yes a soldier is not the same as a political and religious leader, a soldier doesn't have the same personal responsibility for his actions.

Nice refutation.

Friendly reminder that europoors didn't killed the amerindians, but they brought diseases that did it, because 4000 years sleeping on disgusting stables with animals gave then immunity while other civs in america had an healthy lifestyle and didn't slept everyday on horse shit.

so what you mean is that white people are naturally more in touch with nature and degenerate (in the proper sense) amerindians were wiped out by mother nature herself ?

No, you just used the naturalistic fallacy.

>muh fallacies
is always the first argument of the unimaginative person who can't come up with anything original and has to resort to "y-you're wrong here is the scientific reason why [blah blah blah nerdy shit no one cares about blah blah] so i won the argument because i play it along some imaginary rules and you don't"

The Spanish were always good boys who dindu nuffin and wuz going to church every day.

>fallacies it's a made up concept and i'm right because i said that
>everytime when someone points out that i'm wrong, i just have to say that i'm right, even when i don't, this way i'm ALWAYS RIGHT

Ok.

>>fallacies it's a made up concept
of course it is a made up concept, what else would it be
it doesn't get much more conceptual than fallacies, in fact they are a concept about how other people's concepts may be wrong because their use of rhetoric devices

look at this chart it's the sticky on /pol/ which i guess you come from, ironically all the brown people on Veeky Forums come from there
well i see several things wrong with it
>Ad hominem
>After sally present an eloquent case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn't married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird
Well yes i think this Sam is perfectly right actually, should we ? I have to listen to a criminal talk about taxation under the pretense that this is unrelated to her arguments ? Nuh huh i don't think so

Here is a conversation in your fictional world, in 1945 Germany :
-German : "We surrender please don't kill us that would be evil"
-Ally : "Should have thought about that before you gutted Poles and gassed Jews, sir"
-German : "wow but that is totally unrelated to what i said before you dumb fuck, what an ad hominem fallacy ach ach ach"

>Slippery slope fallacy
Don't see the problem either, it's true, actions have consequences and political reforms are often part of a larger agenda

>Strawman
Or you could call it "paraphrasing the other party in more honest terms"

>Appeal to emotion
Oh so now any statement of emotion is just downright unreceivable in debate ? Since when ? You have to be an autistic uncaring cold robot otherwise you are wrong ?

That's what i said this whole chart is fucking autistic.

>and i'm right because i said that everytime when someone points out that i'm wrong, i just have to say that i'm right, even when i don't, this way i'm ALWAYS RIGHT
i am though

>reddit tripfag thinks he's worthy of (You)s

He is worthy of bumps though.

are those spiked anal beads

This is seriously the most autistic post I've seen in a long time. Do you really have this limited an understanding of fallacies and rhetorical devices? Or is this a "hurr I was merely pretending" post?
Or are you seriously suggesting that there is nothing at all wrong slippery slope, strawman, and ad hominem?
And just as a side note, these things are fallacies because they distract from the argument or are hyperbolic in nature, misrepresenting the other side so as to make their side seem more viable. Which is a weak form of debate, as the implication is you don't have the facts to back up your argument, hence having to rely on fallacies.
Anyway, made me respond, 4/10

>each of them with specific sacrifice methods involving live victims getting flayed, bloodletting, getting their beating hearts cut out, and so on
Basically all of them had their hearts taken out. No source states that the flayed victims were flayed alive, but after they died by having their hearts removed.
And why do you mention blooodletting as if it was imposed on the victims? It was practiced by the nobles and priests everyday, even when there was no sacrifice.

You don't understand fallacies. The argument might actually be truthful but it's not because of the reasoning it's presented with.

i.e.
Sally might be wrong, but it's not because she's a woman who isn't married, a former criminal and smelly. These traits are possibly related to her case but that is a whole different argument than dismissing her case based on these facts alone. Simply being arrested once is not an argument, you're simply saying "she might have foul intentions" but we do not know that and is a simple guess or assumption.

He's obnoxious but if you actually read what he's saying he's right

What is logics anyway, right?