GeforceRE: Some thoughts
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 17-11-02 AT 04:03 PM (GMT)]”But history is history, and it´s only to learn from it.”
A very interesting point of discussion you brought up. First of all, it’s naive to place todays values in a historical context. As Keltic said, The Aztecs were probably more cruel than the Spanish, still nobody talks about them. Why? Because they simply don’t exist anymore? Or because it’s so much easier to pick on the Spanish.
I think focussing on Spain and Britain’s bad points does not give a an exact point of what the situation was back then. As we said, we are using modern values and place them simply into the history as if it happened today.
Ohh and before anyone starts accusing me of being euro-centric, I’m not. I’m perfectly aware of the problems related to colonialism. But simply saying that all the conquistadores did was bad is just not true. Some of them had good intentions, others were just after the gold. Spreading the christian belief was just a priority in the 16th century, by all means necessairy. Is it so different from today’s new belief, the economy??? Don’t we also bomb countries to spread our god, the almighty dollar, or the less almighty euro. And don’t we also want to finish off the devil himself, today being referred as Saddam :7. Maybe this sounds a bit silly, but I hope you understand what I want to say. Just because we now have other values, because we give more about the dollar than the pope, doesn’t mean we are better.
We should not judge the people of then, maybe they find our way of approaching conflicts as disgusting as we think about them.
“L’histoire se repête.”
I don’t think we will ever learn from history, because by the time you see the similarity in it, it’s already too late.
GeforceRE: LATE-BREAKING NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!
So are you, most probably. And stop using the marquees to spread your propaganda.
GeforceRE: LATE-BREAKING NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!
So are you, most probably. And stop using the marquees to spread your propaganda.
GeforceRE: Some thoughts
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 17-11-02 AT 03:05 PM (GMT)]”It was different in South America, where both the Spanish and Portugese immediately started running to grab as much gold as possible, so you got a kind of turbo-colonisation here since two powers of that time were in competition to grab as much as possible.”
–> That’s true, and I never denied this. And not only the Portuguese, but later also the French have shown interests in what now is Brazil. But Spain – more than Portugal – had both the people and the finances to undertake missions in South-America, also because independent cities in North-Italy (Genua) also participated in the expeditions. And unlike the Belgian Congo for example, the territories in South America were not property of the Royal Family. Theoretically they were even independent, but the king did organise the transports between Europe and the New World, and the port of Sevilla was the only one allowed to import goods from SA.
“Because Portugal couldn’t split it’s resources. They knew gold was to be found in South America, so most Portugese colonialists went to Brasil.”
–> Apart from the Chinese, no other ‘country’ in Asia wanted to compete against the Portuguese.
“While diseases themselves were very destructive amongst the local population, it didn’t help that the people were by that time already forced to do slave labour Birnenau-style in order to relieve Spain’s rold-thirst.”
–> True, I am not here to defend slavery, which is something barbaric I think. But you should also mention Spain installed so called “reducciones”, compare this to the “nature reserves” of today, where no Spaniards were allowed to come, and the Indians could live freely. (albeit they should become Catholicis and many did so).
“Cortez and Nunez did ‘some bad things’? What about massacring the entire population of Tenochtitlan and totally destroying the city? The same happened to almost every populated city the Spaniards found. Ethnic cleansing by the book, Benjamin. “
–> They didn’t massacre an entire population, at least they didn’t come to the New World with that intention. Nobody denies here that horrible acts were undertaken to install the Catholic Church in South America, but as I said most Indians died from diseases. And you are right, it’s not the flu, but Tyfus and Cholera. My mistake.
“That’s why Torquemada started the Spanish inquisition, and immediately began a massive campaign to clense Jews and Muslems out of Spain. Most were killed. Your history books are quite euphemistical!”
–> Indeed, many Jews and Muslims have been killed by the Spanish inquisition. The situation in Europe was no different than the one in South America, in fact, in many cases, even worse.
“This because of the decay of Spain during the 80-year and 30-year (the latter being also the last part of the former… very obvious) wars. The VOC was disestablished in the Napoleonic era by the way. It wouldn’t have much use nowadays…”
–> Spain was not yet defeated after the 30-year war. In fact in 1656 they were able to conquer Duinkerke (North-West France), and if Cromwell (English president) wouldn’t have intervened, Spain would probably had a new victory on France and the United Provinces. (The Spaniards were already at the gates of Paris).
The southern Netherlands (today’s Belgium) were still in hands of the Spanish, even after Westfalen.
But I agree with you that the 30-year and the 80-year wars are very strange wars, and one of the bloodiest in the history of Europe I guess, mainly because almost all nations were involved.
“..some… slavery?”
–> That was sarcasm, Arthur. I’m perfectly aware of how nasty our Belgian presence in the Congo was, and we should’nt be proud on our King Leopold II, the fourth largest massmurderder in history. But I don’t think Belgium is to blame for the current situation in Congo. How bad we may have treated the local population, Belgium left a country behind which was well organised, had modern infrastructure, and even some companies which gave work to many people (Sabena for example). The ongoing civil wars in that region may have something to do with our past, but we are not to blame. In fact, Belgium has supported many peace-missions in that region, at the costs of our own soldiers, and I think we are still too involved. We should take more distance from the Congo, and let the UN work things out. The
murder of Lumumba (PM of Congo in 1960) by the Belgian and American intelligence services is regrettable, but more things like this have happened in the cold war, not?
“Ah, this explains why you post those West-centered historical theories here. You’re a Euro-centered historian yourself! “
–> I’m sorry but what has this to do with it? Yes, our history is Euro-centric, that doesn’t mean we are not thought of all the bad things we did. As soon as I get the opportunity, I would like to study abroad, but as for now, the lessons are limited to European history.
GeforceRE: Some thoughts
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 17-11-02 AT 03:05 PM (GMT)]”It was different in South America, where both the Spanish and Portugese immediately started running to grab as much gold as possible, so you got a kind of turbo-colonisation here since two powers of that time were in competition to grab as much as possible.”
–> That’s true, and I never denied this. And not only the Portuguese, but later also the French have shown interests in what now is Brazil. But Spain – more than Portugal – had both the people and the finances to undertake missions in South-America, also because independent cities in North-Italy (Genua) also participated in the expeditions. And unlike the Belgian Congo for example, the territories in South America were not property of the Royal Family. Theoretically they were even independent, but the king did organise the transports between Europe and the New World, and the port of Sevilla was the only one allowed to import goods from SA.
“Because Portugal couldn’t split it’s resources. They knew gold was to be found in South America, so most Portugese colonialists went to Brasil.”
–> Apart from the Chinese, no other ‘country’ in Asia wanted to compete against the Portuguese.
“While diseases themselves were very destructive amongst the local population, it didn’t help that the people were by that time already forced to do slave labour Birnenau-style in order to relieve Spain’s rold-thirst.”
–> True, I am not here to defend slavery, which is something barbaric I think. But you should also mention Spain installed so called “reducciones”, compare this to the “nature reserves” of today, where no Spaniards were allowed to come, and the Indians could live freely. (albeit they should become Catholicis and many did so).
“Cortez and Nunez did ‘some bad things’? What about massacring the entire population of Tenochtitlan and totally destroying the city? The same happened to almost every populated city the Spaniards found. Ethnic cleansing by the book, Benjamin. “
–> They didn’t massacre an entire population, at least they didn’t come to the New World with that intention. Nobody denies here that horrible acts were undertaken to install the Catholic Church in South America, but as I said most Indians died from diseases. And you are right, it’s not the flu, but Tyfus and Cholera. My mistake.
“That’s why Torquemada started the Spanish inquisition, and immediately began a massive campaign to clense Jews and Muslems out of Spain. Most were killed. Your history books are quite euphemistical!”
–> Indeed, many Jews and Muslims have been killed by the Spanish inquisition. The situation in Europe was no different than the one in South America, in fact, in many cases, even worse.
“This because of the decay of Spain during the 80-year and 30-year (the latter being also the last part of the former… very obvious) wars. The VOC was disestablished in the Napoleonic era by the way. It wouldn’t have much use nowadays…”
–> Spain was not yet defeated after the 30-year war. In fact in 1656 they were able to conquer Duinkerke (North-West France), and if Cromwell (English president) wouldn’t have intervened, Spain would probably had a new victory on France and the United Provinces. (The Spaniards were already at the gates of Paris).
The southern Netherlands (today’s Belgium) were still in hands of the Spanish, even after Westfalen.
But I agree with you that the 30-year and the 80-year wars are very strange wars, and one of the bloodiest in the history of Europe I guess, mainly because almost all nations were involved.
“..some… slavery?”
–> That was sarcasm, Arthur. I’m perfectly aware of how nasty our Belgian presence in the Congo was, and we should’nt be proud on our King Leopold II, the fourth largest massmurderder in history. But I don’t think Belgium is to blame for the current situation in Congo. How bad we may have treated the local population, Belgium left a country behind which was well organised, had modern infrastructure, and even some companies which gave work to many people (Sabena for example). The ongoing civil wars in that region may have something to do with our past, but we are not to blame. In fact, Belgium has supported many peace-missions in that region, at the costs of our own soldiers, and I think we are still too involved. We should take more distance from the Congo, and let the UN work things out. The
murder of Lumumba (PM of Congo in 1960) by the Belgian and American intelligence services is regrettable, but more things like this have happened in the cold war, not?
“Ah, this explains why you post those West-centered historical theories here. You’re a Euro-centered historian yourself! “
–> I’m sorry but what has this to do with it? Yes, our history is Euro-centric, that doesn’t mean we are not thought of all the bad things we did. As soon as I get the opportunity, I would like to study abroad, but as for now, the lessons are limited to European history.
GeforceSome thoughts
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 17-11-02 AT 10:00 AM (GMT)]I do think this discussions needs some more ‘sensitive’ and accurate points of view. Eventhough I agree with some things Sam said, you should still take this into acount.
First of all there were more waves of colonialism.
The first one in the 16th century, after Christoforo Colombo discovered the New World in 1492. Portuguese men like Vasco Da Gamas have travelled all the way (around Cape of Good Hope) to India, where they have build some settlements like Goa. After a treaty set up by the pope in 1512 (treaty of Tordesillas), the world was divided into a Portuguese and a Spanish half. Still, Portugal lacked both the finances and the people to ‘colonise’ Asia. The Portuguese were more like traders, who even got support from the Chinese, as they were the ones who made it possible to exchange goods between China and Persia for example (none of the Asian countries were interested in European goods though). So, claiming that the Portuguese were rapists, murderers can be applied for some cases, but certainly not for most of them. Even the Spanish, who are claimed for killing 2/3 of the Indians are not that guilty. It was due the flue and the plague the Spanish brought with them so many Indians have died. A few ‘Conquistadores’ like Cortez and Nunez have did some bad things, but the majority of the 300 000 Spanish who moved there during the 16th century were peacefull.
Also, we should not forget the Arabs have also colonised Europe before 1500. Half of the Iberian peninsula was conquered by the Islam. It was only in 1492 the Spanish were able to reconquer Granada and reunite it. The so called reconquista. Religion was far more important than today, as it was the only way to get people united.
In the 17th century, after the Spanish legacy was broken (and Portugal was a part of Spain between 1580 and 1640), England and the United Provinces took over the role of traders. The UP (Holland) created a company in 1601 which still exists up to today, the VOC (Verenigde Oost-Indische Companie/United East-Indian Company).
The second wave of colonialism in the 19th century was a lot more bloody than the first one. Especially in the African territories. I think a fine example of this is the Belgian presence in the Congo. Untill 1960, Belgians did not have to pay taxes because everything we needed we got from the Congo, with some help from our black slaves. Leopold II, our king, made Brussels into one of the finest cities in Europe, at the cost of hundreds of thousands lifes. Eventhough it happened 300 years later, this colonialism was far less civilised. Therefor people like to compare both and don’t see the distinction.
I even think Straw said this to piss of the French and the Spanish, so that they would also have to apologise. The relations between the big 5 in Europe are a bit cool these days (EU-stuff, Gibraltar) and each of them will use every opportunity to piss off the others. What a nice world we live in :7.
BTW, my first decent reply in two months. Don’t spoil it. }>
GeforceSome thoughts
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 17-11-02 AT 10:00 AM (GMT)]I do think this discussions needs some more ‘sensitive’ and accurate points of view. Eventhough I agree with some things Sam said, you should still take this into acount.
First of all there were more waves of colonialism.
The first one in the 16th century, after Christoforo Colombo discovered the New World in 1492. Portuguese men like Vasco Da Gamas have travelled all the way (around Cape of Good Hope) to India, where they have build some settlements like Goa. After a treaty set up by the pope in 1512 (treaty of Tordesillas), the world was divided into a Portuguese and a Spanish half. Still, Portugal lacked both the finances and the people to ‘colonise’ Asia. The Portuguese were more like traders, who even got support from the Chinese, as they were the ones who made it possible to exchange goods between China and Persia for example (none of the Asian countries were interested in European goods though). So, claiming that the Portuguese were rapists, murderers can be applied for some cases, but certainly not for most of them. Even the Spanish, who are claimed for killing 2/3 of the Indians are not that guilty. It was due the flue and the plague the Spanish brought with them so many Indians have died. A few ‘Conquistadores’ like Cortez and Nunez have did some bad things, but the majority of the 300 000 Spanish who moved there during the 16th century were peacefull.
Also, we should not forget the Arabs have also colonised Europe before 1500. Half of the Iberian peninsula was conquered by the Islam. It was only in 1492 the Spanish were able to reconquer Granada and reunite it. The so called reconquista. Religion was far more important than today, as it was the only way to get people united.
In the 17th century, after the Spanish legacy was broken (and Portugal was a part of Spain between 1580 and 1640), England and the United Provinces took over the role of traders. The UP (Holland) created a company in 1601 which still exists up to today, the VOC (Verenigde Oost-Indische Companie/United East-Indian Company).
The second wave of colonialism in the 19th century was a lot more bloody than the first one. Especially in the African territories. I think a fine example of this is the Belgian presence in the Congo. Untill 1960, Belgians did not have to pay taxes because everything we needed we got from the Congo, with some help from our black slaves. Leopold II, our king, made Brussels into one of the finest cities in Europe, at the cost of hundreds of thousands lifes. Eventhough it happened 300 years later, this colonialism was far less civilised. Therefor people like to compare both and don’t see the distinction.
I even think Straw said this to piss of the French and the Spanish, so that they would also have to apologise. The relations between the big 5 in Europe are a bit cool these days (EU-stuff, Gibraltar) and each of them will use every opportunity to piss off the others. What a nice world we live in :7.
BTW, my first decent reply in two months. Don’t spoil it. }>
GeforceRE: NOT LONG NOW!
Certainly right Keltic, don’t forget these days JB drives BMW’s and uses Nokia 😀 The days of Austin Martins and Q’s home-made stuff are over.
GeforceRE: NOT LONG NOW!
Certainly right Keltic, don’t forget these days JB drives BMW’s and uses Nokia 😀 The days of Austin Martins and Q’s home-made stuff are over.
GeforceRE: And the worst songs this year?
Yeah but Studio Brussels remains the only decent radio-station in the Low countries. At least one public enterprise that is making profits.
GeforceRE: And the worst songs this year?
Yeah but Studio Brussels remains the only decent radio-station in the Low countries. At least one public enterprise that is making profits.
GeforceRE: NOT LONG NOW!
I’m going to watch it next week here in Belgium.
GeforceRE: NOT LONG NOW!
I’m going to watch it next week here in Belgium.
GeforceRE: And the worst songs this year?
Anyone likes the song ‘It’s just porn mum? ‘
I do 😀
GeforceRE: And the worst songs this year?
Anyone likes the song ‘It’s just porn mum? ‘
I do 😀
Sign In
