The Pelicans’ Nest discussion
This topic is about
Tree of Hate
Tree of Hate
>
Part II Growth of the Legend Ch. 3
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
For instance, if the Spanish were so hateful toward the indigenous of the Indies (America) why did many of the original conquistadores marry native girls? Why did Hernán Cortés name one of his male children Moctezuma? Why did the Spanish monarchy make certsin that the line of Moctezuma was an accepted line of the royalty, to the extent that we have European monarchs today that are related to the royal line of Moctezuma? Why were most of the first mayors, or alcaldes taken from the rankes of the caciques (tribal chiefs)? Why does the Spanish art of the Indies always show the indigenous as co-equal and dignified from the 16th century on?
I believe these questions answer themselves... but does it cause your mind and imagination to open up avenues of discussion?
Slave owning whites in the U.S. bore children with their slaves and often gave those children family names. The sir names of African Americans to this day who are decendants of slaves are those of slave owners, many of whom are also their ancestors. This certainly does not indicate that white slave owners in the US were favorable to the blacks they bought and sold, exploited and tortured. Simply because Spaniards and indigenous peoples bore children together does not mean that the Spaniards had a favorable view of the indigenous people. Nor does it mean they had a hostile view. I just do not believe that it is decisive evidence either way.
I have read chapters 3 and 4 and I continue to struggle. I have to say that the justification for the expulsion of Jews went over my head. I think part of my problem was that I was so horrified that the author seemed to be justifying anti-Semitic behavior, which is not in dispute across Europe from the 15th century to the 20th century and continues to surface, that I could not focus on what was being said. I am also uncomfortable with the regular descriptive of "heritical" when naming Protestant. This happened regularly in chapter 4, as well as elsewhere. I realize that the Catholic Church of the 16th century did view the various Protestant reform movements as heritical, it seems inappropriate in a 20th century scholarly book. It is coming off as pro-Catholic propaganda.
The author makes a lot of general accusations about the negative ways the Spanish were portrayed among the Dutch, Germans, Italians, British, etc. Of course, he notes that in all of these cases, there was political and economic tension between Spain and the other country. Except for multiple Dutch pamphlets, all we are given is his summary statement and the occasional quote. To think that a country disparaged an enemy in print, in pop culture, in politics is far from surprising. Every people, including our own, does this. We do it in the photos shown on the news and in our pop culture and in the way we shape political arguments. And we do it domestically as we speak of members of the rival political group. What would be surprising would be to think that Spain did not communicate negative views of its opponents. But I am getting the impression that the author wants me to believe that Spain was the height of integrity and righteousness in all of its words and actions.
I need far more primary source citations. We are directed to a single person writing from the New World that describes Spanish and indigenous interactions favorably. But I don't know why I should believe this single voice above all the negative reports. I do believe it should be part of the larger picture, I just don't know why it should override everything else. Is there more reports that can balance out the record? If so, where are there. And, show me all these European sources that unfairly tarnish the Spanish reputation. At the same time, show me an equal body that indicates that the Spanish did not try to equally sway the thinking of its own population by vilifying the enemy.
Even if the Dutch, German,British, etc were unethical in a destructive portrayal of the Spanish who said only good and true things about them in return, I am not yet convinced that this is at the root of some lasting anti-Spanish prejudice.
I will keep reading.
Mod
The Anonymous Conquistador transcript was lost, then a French copy found in France which was not signed, thus anonymous. I do not believe that it was originally anonymous.
Las Casas is not a primary source, though he is usually used as the only primary source.
Mod
Mod
https://books.googleusercontent.com/b...
The letters of Hernán Cortés:
http://inside.sfuhs.org/dept/history/...
And I did find an English copy of the Anonymous Conquistador. I am completely ignorant of it’s contents. I an going to buy a copy ASAP.:
http://www.famsi.org/research/christe...
The most notorious of las Casas’ pamphlets:
http://www.famsi.org/research/christe...
Mod
Hello. I am following the discussion and as i am a friend of Mr. Hunt i decide to participate in the discussion after of my participation i Will continue as a member of this group of course we can not judge as historian with the eyes of the 20th century or better 21th century the facts of the past, besides seeing the quantity of deaths of the 20th century J.R.R. Tolkien said that only the crazies and fools could look it withouth horror, or fear. The truth is that in Spain in the Will of Elizabeth of Castille considered the precolombines culture with the same rights that the inhabitant of Castille. The happened in the laws of Burgos and Salamanca is an evidence. Besides why look the Aztecs and Incas as natives and not as hatred conqueror as the spaniard. I want to remind that the Aztecs are not from Mexica they are for the north of United States, and they destroyed the Toltecs culture, and Cortes can defeat with the colaboration of other precolombine cultures tyranized by the aztecs, menawhile the independant of this countries was made by criollos or White was born in America lead the revolutions against Spain, curiously Spain was supported by Indians and the black people. The mirrors of the bad called liberators was the Ilustration movement hostile to the indians. It was the Ilustrators who destroyed the the reservoir of indians in Paraguay if somebody wants to read racism can read Voltaire. Inn his book Will find racism, intolerance, defending of the slavery and antisemitism. If we analize the testimonies of Argentinians president they hartred the indianand their mirror was France. Proof that all topics of the Black Legend is false was that the group most increased were the blood half colective the marriage between Spaniards and precolombine groups, even there was marriage with black people the product is a saint Saint Martin Porres. In Spain there were people who fought against the slavery as Claver. About the Jews question did all posible the kings of Castille to avoid the expelling of the jews but there were three factors, which avoided this thing the pressure of the converts, the hatred to the people to the jews, and the pressure of the Europeans Chancellors. This book said that part of the hatred against Spain was to have moorish and jews blood by the Italian humanist and the German Reformers. The own Luther was antisemetic. The purpose of the protestantism was the destroying of the Catholic Church and the creation of Christian Church lead by the princes and kings and this is very dangerous, because a man who mixed the religious power and the secular is very dangerous, and not ever the secular prince did the right, besides this thing would suppose more wars between the european princes. Now we speak about tolerance but except some particular cases nobody bet for the tolerance and the respect Luther, Calvin, and Theodore Beza opposite to the tolerance, even there was wars between the own protestant. This is a question of power. Locke wrote a very limitated defense of the tolerance, and the King James II was more tolerant tan him and the King Willioam III. If you want to know more against of the black legend i recomend to you these books https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4...https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3... https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4...
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...
Does the "black" in black legend refer to a claim that Spanish intermarried with North Africans and so had "black blood"? Or is it used in a metaphorical sense designating this prejudice as evil?
Irene wrote: "Does the "black" in black legend refer to a claim that Spanish intermarried with North Africans and so had "black blood"? Or is it used in a metaphorical sense designating this prejudice as evil?"It is an interesting question really with black we do not want to have a racist meaning. With this Word we want to define negative or hostile. There are an opposite to the black legend curiously the origin is the same of the Black Legend Italy, the Rose/Pink Legend or the Legend is from Italy and it is the opposite to praise excesevely Spain. To combat the Black Legend Spain had several writers to fight with the black legend and the result is the opposite. www.cartascomerciales.es/cultura/leye...
The book of the spanish writer Iván Vélez sepeaks more about the black legend.
So there was competing propaganda strains, a "black" one that denigrated all things Spanish and a "rose" one that praised all things Spanish? And the thesis of this author is that the negative propaganda won out and that all things Spanish continue to be viewed through that same negative lens? Do I have this correct?
Irene wrote: "So there was competing propaganda strains, a "black" one that denigrated all things Spanish and a "rose" one that praised all things Spanish? And the thesis of this author is that the negative prop..."Being sincere the Black Legend has won, and nowadays the country more hostile against Spain is the own Spain. It is for political reasons the influence of the left wing in the Study Academics Plan, and the problema of Spain with the Independentism in Basque Country but in Catalonia. Now there is a brave try to reply to the black legend for the part of some writers.
I have very little contact with people living through Europe. Would you say that most Europeans hold negative opinions of Spaniards? I have never encountered negativity toward Spain iin the U.S. It is true that there is a general sense that Spain did not always treat native peoples well when colonizing the New World, but that is a charge brought against every European country that colonized the Americas, Africa, Australia, or parts of Asia. I can't speak to any claim that these histories were not treated even handedly in earlier generations, but I don't see a disparity today. It is possible that we don't give Spain enough credit for what it did right in its period of colonization; I don't have enough background to analyze that, but I do not perceive an excessively negative approach to Spain's history in the Americas as contrasted with other groups. I think that people in the U.S. may be a bit more reluctant to address head on our ancestors' terrible treatment of native peoples. But I think that it is not out of a negative view of Spain as contrasted with that of England or France, but rather it comes from a reluctance to want to face any consequences or responsibility that we might have inherited. If we live on land stolen from others, if we have become rich at the expense of others, if our ancestors have broken treaties and massacred people, what responsibility do we inherit to rectify those wrongs? That is an uncomfortable question that most would rather ignore. But cowardess to face responsibility is not the same as prejudice against Spain.
Irene wrote: "I have very little contact with people living through Europe. Would you say that most Europeans hold negative opinions of Spaniards? I have never encountered negativity toward Spain iin the U.S. It..."Well i would say that the opinión of some countries about Spain is negative, or these countries we have not enough respect overall the norse countries. However now for the primacy of the left wing the most critic against Spain are the spaniards there paints over the statue of Christopher Colombus.
I consider that the traetment of Spain to the precolombine cultures was good, when the treatment was not good there were people complaing for the traetment to the native, especially the catholic church, and the King listened him. The spaniards were more cruel with the spaniards tan the precolombine ppopulation, It is true that the Spaniards chronicles says that the spanish killed a lot of indians but it was for getting Prestige in the court. The reality it was that there were a lot of marriage between indians and spaniards. Although the relationship with France is not very goos. His colonization was not bad they colonize the natives, perhaps the only mistake was giving alcoholic drink. This is avoided in Spain, because we know that the alcohol was very negative for them. One evidence that the colonization was not bad is the high percentage of indian population in South America, others unfortunatelly can not say the same. It is true we caught a lot gold metals butwe brought a lot of useful things.
Unfortunatelly that you say is a phenomenon of the all period of the history, and something that it is in the human condition. They can do the good things, but equally bad actions.
Italian Bases of the Leyenda Negra
Origins of the Germanic Black Legend
Jews and Spaniards
France and Spain