Cortes

I couldn't tell you, I find that me knowing who my grandparents and great grandparents and so on makes me an exception to the rule, most of the other beans I know don't even know who their great grandparents are and some don't even know who their grandparents are. Why would they give a shit about someone like Cortes?

>antifa
hmm

People sperg out here about Columbus. I was wondering if people sperged out about Cortes in Mexico.

>People sperg out here about Columbus

Man how the fuck was he supposed to know he stumbled upon the Americas? How can people lay the blame for everything that happened since on him? All Im saying is that its pretty easy to shit on a guy that lived hundreds of years ago, what do they have to gain from all this sperging?

>gain
The optimal result for every action would be America belonging to Amerindians the same as europe belongs to europeans.

So much time has gone by and most of the natives are gone, the optimal result is not possible at this point.

brutal and greedy, most conquistadores ended killing each other and treaching his pals
but their courage and is recognized

>possible
How is it less possible than letting arabs, west africans and mexicans into USA and europe?

Hey OP... point the aztecs in this map here: then ask again how is Cortez viewed in Latin America

Whats that got to do with what I said?

The optimal result has nothing to do with what you consider "possible".

The optimal result is America belonging to Amerindians the same as europe belongs to europeans.

>using leyenda negra sources
shiggy diggy doo

Well I guess, what can we do about it now?

As a greedy souless brute.
So is viewed as negative , but not hitler kind of negative.

Logically, nobody gives a fuck about Cortes outside of Mexico.

>we
Dunno about you. But America belonging to Amerindians the same as europe belongs to europeans is a huge statement by itself. Many different actions can lead to this goal.

>So how is he viewed in Latin America today?
People here are full retards that are brainwashed to hate him.

Only a very reduced group of people know a bit about history dont shit on him.

I'm a Mestizo myself, what you're implying makes me nervous for some reason

The idea itself can be dangerous. I acknowledge that.

I'm not implying anything.

I'm stating that America belongs to Amerindians the same as europe belongs to europeans. This idea is quite intuitive, though.

Well that leaves the question of what happens to people like me, all that comes to mind is "removal" since we're not European enough most of the time to go to Europe and the Injuns will probably be resentful about us punking them out since the Spaniards left

Every source we have on Cortez is propaganda from his rivals, but nobody ever mentions this and they act like they’re quoting a primary source when really they’re quoting some buttmad rival 3 decades later, Cortez was only in Latin America for 6 years and he is blamed for 50 years of colonization by other men, including the man who wrote the “source” on Cortez and was deflecting some of his own misdeeds onto Cortez.

>removal
That seems too extreme, though. Amerindians have shown to be less violent than europeans, except some mesoamerican cultures.

>People sperg out here about Columbus.
We had this problem in Argentina.

Previous government tore down a historic statue of Columbus to put one of Juana Azurduy for muh diversity reasons (a minor figure in the wars of independence but she was a WOMYN and had indigenous heritage).

Italian descendants protest, make up a huge shitstorm. After all the original Columbus statue had been a gift from Italian residents in Argentina who had raised money in the 1900s.

Photos appear of the statue destroyed. People go insane.

Eventually new government ends up spending God knows how much money to restore the original statue.

As a "compromise", Columbus was restored and placed elsewhere while Juana Azurduy now stands where he did.

I don't know dude, those injun cartel fuckers in Oaxaca give me the creeps with the face peeling and all that

Well he did kill a lot of people on Hispaniola

Yeah but the Aztecs were hated

Knowing that they all of them are mestizos with spanish looks, that's not surprising.

Amerindians have shown to be less violent than europeans except some mesoamerican cultures.

Either way, I'm just way to comfy in the world that came from Columbus stumbling upon the Americas created and I get left alone most of the time. I don't think anyone can sell giving everything back to the injuns at this point in time to me, just doesn't seem worth it anymore

>worth
Knowing that Amerindians have more civilization potential than europeans. It's pretty much worth everything.

>some retards are a general consensus
I use olmec heads as toilets. Does that make me mainstream?

I'll take a pass on that

>long term thinking is not worth it
That seems to be the rule in Latin America.

I guess America belonging to Amerindians the same as europe belongs to europeans, seems to be shocking for some people.

>Amerindians have more civilization potential than europeans

Kek. Besides the Aztecs, Mayans, and Incas they didn't produce shit in a whole hemisphere. Europe had multiple differing cultures alone.

Wrong.

Amerindians have more civilization potential than europeans, as they had demonstrated a higher development rate than europeans in all history.

>Citation
>Needed

They weren't even out of the Bronze Age by the time Cortes came around

Mexican here.

Great hero to the big brain fellas, A villian to the brown commies brainwashed by kikes

You this kind of Mexican?

That's because those fuckers ruled everything

>That seems to be the rule in Latin America.

Must be the injun genes

Yeah all that land in what is now the US, Brazil, Canada, northern South America, Argentina, Northern Mexico.

Do those brown commies not understand if it wasn't for Spanish explorers like him they wouldn't exist?

>europeans
>from aurignacian proto-gravettian to solutrean:10000 years (30000BC-20000BC)
>from aurignacian-antelian to start of crop development: 9000 years(30000BC-21000BC)
>from start of crop development to neolithic revolution: 10500 years (21000BC-10500BC)
>from neolithic revolution to earliest use of copper: 5500 years (10500BC-5000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to earliest use of tin bronze: 6700 years (10500BC-3800BC)

>Amerindians:
>from aurignacian proto-gravettian to clovis: 5500 years (16000BC-10500BC)
>from aurignacian proto-gravettian to the start of crop development: 5000 years (16000BC-11000BC)
>from start of crop development to neolithic revolution: 7000 years (11000BC-4000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to copper: 3000 years (4000BC-1000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to earliest use of tin bronze: 4700 years (4000BC-700 AD)

-"2003a. Tiwanaku Period (Middle Horizon) bronze metallurgy in the lake Titicaca basin: A preliminary assessment. En Tiwanaku and its hinterland, T 2. A. Kolata, (Ed.), pp. 404-434. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D. C."
-"1997. El bronce arsenical y el Horizonte Medio. En Arqueología, antropología e historia en los Andes: Homenaje a María Rostworowski, R. Varón y J. Flores E. (Eds.), pp. 153-186. Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, Lima."
-"researchgate.net/publication/317346941_Ancient_metalworking_in_South_America_A_3000-year-old_copper_mask_from_the_Argentinian_Andes"
-"Historia de América Andina: Las sociedades aborígenes"
-"link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02859340"
-"journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141923"
-"whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/1873/"
-"es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoamericano"
-"en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluefish_Caves"

Amerindians had a higher development rate than europeans.
As Amerindians have more civilization potential than europeans, I actually doubt that.

>civilization potential
He posted it again lol

Civilization potential? They got their asses handed to them multiple times by a superior civilization the fuck are you goin on about

>potential
and yet look where we are today pablo..

based incanposter

Bernal Castillo is a rival? He served him. Also there are letters written by he himself.

Europe is only a region. There are hundreds of cultures, thousands even in the Americas.

How do those who hate Cortes regard the Aztecs?

SeeAmerindians had a higher development rate compared to europeans. Therefore Amerindians have more civilization potential than europeans.

Conclusion: Amerindians are superior to europeans.
How is this hard to get?
>1 disease wipes out 40% european population and get invaded by nomads
>20+ diseases massacre amerindian civilizations yet they survive and start the demographic recovering
Amerindians are superior to europeans.

People in general.

T. Hispanista derechairo.
I bet you are voting for PAN.

>Bernal Castillo is a rival?
Cortes didn't compensate him or many other conquistadors that well for their sacrifices. thats why castillo and others went on to conquer guatemala

> civilization potential

This is a complete meme. It would only be a sensible argument if Amerindians were somehow a different species of humans that developed at a later stage, but they aren't, they descend from the same primates as the rest of us, so they've had the same number of years to achieve way less

Wrong.
The earliest Amerindian lived in 26000BC.
The earliest european lived in 40000BC.

Amerindians lived in arctic lands for almost 10000 years before populating the Americas later, circa 16000BC. Amerindians were living in non-arctic lands for 18000 years.
Europeans and middle easterners populated non-arctic lands for 40000+ years.

Thus, Amerindians had a higher development rate than europeans. Therefore, Amerindians have more civilization potential than europeans.

Conclusion: Amerindians are superior to europeans.

> Amerindians lived in arctic lands for almost 10000 years

Yes, and how did they develop at this time? They didn't develop shit, so clearly their civilization potential isn't all that.

>how did they develop
Let's see:
26000BC-16000BC ; after 10000 years it shows proto-gravettian.
40000BC-30000BC ; after 10000 years it shows proto-gravettian.

10000 years of Amerindians living in arctic lands had the same result as europeans and middle-easterners living 10000 years in non-arctic zones.

Then, Amerindians are superior to europeans.

You do know that all humans come from the same base population, right? If you say that their development only started when they got to the Americas, what about all that time spent getting there? It didn't count because they weren't settled? Besides that, I think, if you want to say that people can have different >development potentials," you could assume that these potentials might give advantages to different parts of development, like saying that, say, West Asians are great at beginning civilizations, but shitty at modern parts, while Euros make poor starts, but only get better. Or something.
You are just so ridiculous.

But why start Amerindian at 26,000? Weren't they human before that?

You pick the time they are believed to have settled down as starting point because it suits your agenda, but other than that, it's a completely arbitrary choice.

Cortez's conquistadores practiced mass enslavement and genocide. I see it hard to consider his contributions as beneficial to the overall state of mankind.

You aren't thinking of if this right: During the time humans crossed over the Bering land bridge, ALL humans were nomadic hunter gatherers and nobody had settled down yet, nor had agriculture been invented yet. Everybody was just doing nothing and just taking tens of thousands of years to travel around not just Amerindians. Furthermore, the land bridge that connected Eurasia to the Americas only came about 30k years ago: so people COULDN'T have crossed till then: People taking 10-15k years to cross over makes sense since it took them 10k-20k years to spread across eurasia.

Even by the time humans first arrived in Mexico 15k yeas ago, agriculture wasn't a thing yet. Humans arrived in the fertile crescent 60k years ago, It took around 50k years for humans there to develop agriculture (in 8000 BC) and then another 4k years to develop actual civilization ( in 4000BC). In mexico, once people got there 15k years ago, it took them much shorter to actually develop agriculture, only 8k years (in 5000 BC), which is what is mentioning, though he's also being retarded making it out like amerindians are advanced supermen.

The reason that's dumb is it took both the Fertile Crescent and mesoamerica the same amount of time years to then develop civilization afterward: 4000 years (8000 BC to 4000 BC in the cresecent, 5000 BC to 1000 BC in Mesoamerica). Furthermore, Mesoamerica at the time of contact, 3000 years after their first civilizations, were generally on par with Eurasian cultures that existed 3000 years after their first civilizations (such as the ancient greeks, which were the bronze age to iron age transition, and the Aztecs were generally bronze and iron age tier; albiet behind bronze and ahead of iron in a few ways)

So, overall, Mesoamericans advanced more or less as fast as the Old World did once Agriculture actually propped up, but did develop agriculture faster.

You don't know what people were like 15,000 years ago so you are basically making up this ridiculous argument that all peoples were completely the same at that point to suit your agenda and it's painful to read.

Kind of impartially. Most people know him as part of their basic history but don't really think of him either way.
t. Mexican.

P haplogroup populations lived since 33000BC and they are the ancestors of the R derived haplogroup populations in europe, and the Q derived haplogroup populations in Americas.

The supposed divergence happened before 25000BC, as the R haplogroup appeared since then.

The earliest populations in America lived in 26000BC, and the Q haplogroup appeared in central asia, circa 29000BC-26000BC.

If we define the distinction between Amerindians and non-Amerindians according to genetic distance, then Amerindians are still superior to europeans.
See the first part of this post.
That's wrong. Amerindians had demonstrated a higher development rate compared to europeans.

>Psychopathic religion
*tips fedora*
But seriously if that's all you got you don't know much about their religion.

I seriously, literally have zero idea what you are even trying to imply here. What do you mean by your asseration that not all people were the same? If they aren't the same, what bearing does that have at all at anything I said there? Also, YOU are the only now claiming that there's some "difference" between the various groups of early humans at that point, so the burden of proof is on you.

But, again, I don't even see what that would change if it's true. We know that agriculture wasn't invented anywhere untill like 8000 BC. Everybody on earth was nomadic hunter gatherers till around then. The bering land bridge connecting Eurasia and the America didn't form till 30k years ago. Given the distance involved, humans only arriving in the Americas by 15k years ago makes perfect sense and matches up entirely with how long it took humans to get from Africa to europe and china. And since NOBODY had invented agriculture by that point, any given population that settled in a given point would have had to develop it independently.

Even if one group of humans was genetically different in soome way or anhother (again, I don't even know what the fuck you are trying to say), it wouldn't change the above or anything I said in the other post. Judging how long it took a group to develop only after they settled into that region is the only sensical way to approach it if the intial population was pre-agriculture to begin with.

You what? the conquistadors got their asses handed to them by the Tlaxcalla, and only weren't all killed there because the Tlaxcalla had been getting worn down by the Aztecs and they realized the Spaniards would make good allies, so they spared them. After that, the Tlaxcala's armies were fighting with the Spanish, as did the Totonacs and Otomi who also joined them, so the Spanish had the difference in numbers and supplies negated.

You are being just as retarded as the people you are arguing with.

I'm actually being kind of reasonable as I'm showing how Amerindian superiority is demonstrated by such comparisons.

Genetic distinction between Amerindians and non-Amerindians (ancestors of R based populations in europe), show how Amerindians still had a higher development rate compared to europeans.

Repeating the same phrase over and over again doesn't make you right? Oh and your chart was shit evidence.

Best timeline would be Ming dynasty get a couple more non-autistic emperors and officials and set up camp in America desu

Is that a question?

Amerindians have demonstrated a higher development rate compared to europeans. Deal with it.

Stay mad, indigenista.

He killed millions...

To save thousands.

>Mexicans take pride in the Spanish language, take pride in having Spanish last names, they make fun of Mexicans who look Asian.

AZTEC PRIDE. RIGHT GUYS?

everyone knew that china would be about 32000 km to the west, so he had to be extremely stupid to think he would reach india in ~2 months

he was literally retarded, but really i mean it. Look it up

>most of the natives are gone
yeah so fuck em and their impoverished descendants right? No use crying over spilled blood after all

Mexicans have a tendency to romanticize and make heroic their precolumbian civilizations but disregard and treat like shit the contemporary indigenous peoples. But a look at the corrupt white upper class of Mexico and also the fact that most cartel are castizo and mestizo stock, you can see why they would prefer to deflect their problems and say the indians are the ones holding the country back. When it's the other way around.

ITT: eurangutans BTFO

lol how does this faggot do it anyway?

Columbus was a man who lived during the time of the Inquisition, but was arrested by Spain for excessive cruelty.

You know, if you just don't really care about anything but your comfort, you don't have to waste your time pretending to have opinions or stuff.

>tfw too indian looking to fit in with the cholos
>not indian looking enough to fit in with natives
>too Mexican to fit in with the Americans
>not Mexican enough to fit in with other Mexicans

>But a look at the corrupt white upper class of Mexico and also the fact that most cartel are castizo and mestizo stock, you can see why they would prefer to deflect their problems and say the indians are the ones holding the country back.
the Spanish descended upper class is still fucking over the indians by tricking everyone else into thinking the impoverished Indians who barely make it day to day are the reason why Mexico is the way it is.

i've never seen another country in the world were so many people believe the people at the bottom of the social and economic class are what is holding everyone back.

I think it's all the more impressive that they progressed at such a pace for the things they didn't have or didn't develop, like beasts of burden, tool-quality metals, or shoes.

That said, the Valley was an extremely rich environment. I guess they deserve some credit for knowing where to stop wandering. Looking at you, Eskimos.

This, at least here we don't have many reasons to focus on him or his actions in school so he's usually just mentioned.
In our case the bandeirantes are the closest we get from a "big bad conquistator".
Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure in the leftovers of spanish america his usually seem badly as fuck, even more among nativist movements and countries with a bigger mixed/native population like Bolivia or Peru.
We can't forget education around here is based a lot on anti-imperialist ideas and when it comes to colonization the european is the imperialist people learn to hate to some extent.

This is why I usually just hung out with the Asian kids.

nobody cares about what happens to you arjentinos narizones this is about MEXICO and CORTEZ go start your own thread about big jewish noses pinche arjentino judio

Your evidence is shit

Evidence is evidence. Facts are facts.

And Amerindians had demonstrated a higher development rate compared to europeans. Therefore Amerindians have more civilization potential than europeans. Conclusion: Amerindians are superior to europeans. Deal with it.