Thread 17781054

Why was Spanish colonialism so brutal as compared to the enlightened benevolence, and the humane guiding hand of the British?

They were arabs until like 1500 so they had to be very efficient to catch up to get a good place in History

>>17781054 (OP)
Me on the left with the blue feather.

>>17781054 (OP)
You're regurgitating Black Legend propaganda, the Spanish were exceedingly benevolent, especially after the Bourbon reforms.
They admitted that Indios have souls while Anglos were gifting them blankets infected with smallpox on purpose to wipe them out.

There was only 1 genocide against the Indians and it certainly wasn't made by the Spanish....

>>17781054 (OP)
It is ironic that the first laws against slavery in the world were pushed by Habsbourgs in Spanish territories because of the influence of Catholic scholastic writers, as Las Casas, Vitoria, Suarez, etc.

Then the usurped french family of the Bourbons abolished these laws during the XVIII century excused by liberal Protestant writers (Locke, Hobbes, Montesquieu, etc.) because they wanted to create in Spanish viceroyalties, juridically equal to the mainland, what their kind made up in Jamaica, Haiti, 13th colonies, Brazil, etc.

>>17781114
>while Anglos were gifting them blankets infected with smallpox on purpose to wipe them out.
The spics did the same tho

>>17781141
Yeah, that's why South America is filled with Injuns, because Spanish exterminated them all

>muh sparsely populated north america
Chile, Venezuela, Columbia, Panama, Costa Rica, Philippines, etc., were quite sparsely populated as well.

>>17781153
There were far more injus in south/central america than in the north hence why Paco couldn't exterminate them all

But in regions as sparsely populated as north america such as Argentina and Uruguay and the Caribbeans the natives were all wiped out

>>17781163
There weren't more injuns in Chile than in North America lel

>>17781163
>There were far more injus in south/central america
Mexico is part of North America. Just to start with.
Also what you say is fake. There were more agrarian tribes in North America than in South America.

Only the Andeans reached a civilized stage. Mapuches were hunter-gatherers, mesolithic Amazonic tribes are even more primitive, tribes barely made up by 50/300 persons.

Apaches, pueblos, iroquous, etc., were neolithic in stage and made up large tribal confederations. And the ones around Missisipi were quite proto urban.

>>17781181
>andeans
>were civilized

>>17781054 (OP)
Its was just resource extraction where as the mentally ill Anglos wanted to make new countries

>>17781218
The original purpose of colonies was gold. That's why the crown and Vatican greenlit the destruction of native American culture. Natives were ushered into a serf lifestyle with next to 0 productivity and smoked weed. This is why latin America failed. It kept the natives alive with some measure of rights since they converted.

The people that founded the US enjoyed a more mature and developed colonial game plan focussed on tried and true wealth extraction like tobacco where the labor enjoyed realistically no rights. The other huge boon was the maturity of the US understanding of international finance which allowed them to issue 50% tariffs to supercharge it's industrial capacity to the detriment of its agricultural sector.

On top of this the relative early date of the revolution allowed the US to get a head start on industrialization which was hindered by English trade restrictions to the point that US manufacturing output increased 6 times in a generation

>>17781168
there's barely any injuns in Chile
>>17781181
Where are the natives of the caribbean? disingenous moor spic

>>17781134
>the first laws against slavery in the world were pushed by Habsbourgs
But never put into practice
>>17781054 (OP)
>Why was Spanish colonialism so brutal
It was religiously bigoted but racially tolerant, while the brits were religiously tolerant but racists.

>>17781412
>there's barely any injuns in Chile
Chile has more injuns and mestizos in raw numbers than the US prior to the Mexican migration

>>17781454
>and mestizos
mestizos are non-native mongrels that despise injuns

>>17781470
Mestizos in Chile are 40-50% native. Also Mapuches have a sizeable population while native americans outside of their bantustanes are extinct

>>17781483
what did I just say retarded moor? mestizos don't count

>>17781054 (OP)
Anglo settlers wiped out natives in canada US (and Australia) it’s their trademark. While Iberian’s were intermixing with Indians and coexisting. Also there’s a reason why today every black American descendant of slaves has a certain amount (~20%) of euro (British) admixture in them

>>17781496
>NOOOOOO ignore marriages that is as inhumane as genocide
Kek fuck off

>>17781054 (OP)
Because it was a feudalistic pre enlightenment shithole. Just read up on how local economies were organized.
>>17781076
Me in the back.
>>17781114
>DA BLACK LEYEND O ALGO
The reforms granting amerindians legal protections weren't done out of altruism you coping spic. It was one of many countermeasures taken against the growing power of the local conquistador ruling clique. The mexican indians were the most loyal of the colonial subjects to the pedophile in Rome. By creating a class of loyal serfs in Mexico, the local encomenderos couldn't go over the King's head and just lord over whoever he wanted.

Also, Bartolome de Las casas was one of the faggots who resented the Chadquistadors for treating the colonies like their personal warlord kingdoms. He only started acting like a janny after he was out-played at the caudillo game when he himself took part in the slave economy of 16th century New Spain.

>>17781054 (OP)
>humane guiding hand of the British
You're going to set the sarrs off with that one lol

>>17781584
OP here. Uhh, but anon, I'm Indian myself.

British rule, howsoever oppressive, was manifold times better than the yoke of Mohammedan oppression. We Hindus could breathe, almost after three quarters of a millennia, thanks to the East India Company. The British brought us from the grim valleys of strife, backwardness, and oppression to the sunny uplands of education, rule of law, civility, etc., and so much more.

>>17781615
Tell that to your cousins in the west hell bent on revenge.

>>17781114
>Black Legend
Doesn't exist. Nobody in academia outside of Spain and maybe Portugal uses this term unironically. Literally just a giant Spic cope to obfuscate the fact they killed more people than HItler and Stalin COMBINED.

>>17781559
iberberians raped everything in sight like pajeets then brainwashed the mongrels to hate their indio side, not surprising since iberberians hate their moor genes to this day
the kike genes in iberberians makes them gaslight the rest of the world (muh leyenda negra o algo) and the moor nigger genes made them rapists in the first place

The reggaetonification of central and south america by the spanish has been a disaster for humanity

>>17781779
Reggaeton was literally invented by glowniggers to dumb Latinx down. There's a reason it came from Puerto Rico

>>17781795
>the CIA invented reggaeton o algo
Tacobrain moment

>>17781114
The Bourbons were French and Habsburgs were German.

>>17781427
They were put into practize actually, specially during the XVII century, that's why Portuguese chimpet out in part, their colonial economy was based on slavery and the Monarchy seeked to block them from doing it. The most known cases was the black slaves that fleed from British colonies to Spanish Florida during Charles II reign, they were given lands and the status of subjects.

The very core of the discusion about the slavery among Protestants during XVIII century was a thing because Protestantism justified it since it was a religious movement backed by merchants.
Catholic theology was strongly anti-slavery since antiquity and Spanish theologists openly fought slavery and pressed the Habsbourgs to approve laws against it.

Muslims by their side did not even considered to ban slavery because the very core of Quran was centered around defending slavery and pillage.

>>17781114
>especially after the Bourbon reforms.
The Laws of Indies and ban of slavery in many viceroyalties were a thing because of Habsbourgs and the scholars working for them.
The Bourbons filled the Spanish America with slavers and plantations.

you got to hand it to Hispanics for covering up the fact they are responsible for the slave trade and most of the abhorrent colonial history. Then to top it off they pass the buck to the Brits. Then the cherry on top is they act like they are the oppressed minority.

>>17781953
Slavery goes completely against protestantism. Thats why the protestant English outlawed it.

>>17781635
>killed more people than HItler and Stalin COMBINED.
I don't think there ever were this much natives in Americas

>>17782679
Are you genuinely retarded? What Americans refer as "Hispanics" aren't Spaniards, who get plenty of blame like other europeans.

>>17781896
The Spanish ones obviously and explicitly weren't.

>>17781054 (OP)
1: Post Reconquista Spain was/is basically just Arabs and NAFRIS in denial.
2: While the British and French found (relatively) peaceful and intelligent natives who were interested in building regional peace agreements and trading federations - and who were happy to meet their new trade partners from over the water; the natives the Spaniards met first were basically just one step down from screaming about 'BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!'

>>17781054 (OP)
There's miscegenation in South America

>>17781054 (OP)
It was an unintended consequence of Spanish (Catholic) policy which forbade the conquerors of owning the slaves. Because people cannot be ethically owned etc. As a results the slavery still existed but since nobody "owned" the slaves they were being brutally exploited by everybody with about the shortest live expectancy of any slaves ever.
The Britons did "own" their slaves and an unintended consequence of that was that they at least had some financial incentive to prolong their lives to not lose their "investments". Mind you that the British were still freely murdering on the spot anybody that didn't let himself get enslaved, that is all Northern Indians in general.

>>17782888
Literally you are a clueless moron. The Spaniards packed injuns in their own towns, with their communal land and with their own laws and they spent all day smoking weed and drinking and from time to time a cacique (injun leader) would send people to work in mines, public works or haciendas in exchange of European goods.
There were plenty of negro slaves in Mexico and Peru and Spanish authorities promoted miscinegization so indian laws couldn't apply to the kids to get some productivity and economic output

>>17782896
>no no no, you see, it wasn't slavery, it was only the educational measure to stop people from living the way they always lived and bring some coin into our pockets instead.
Fuck yourself in your empty headspace.

>>17782904
You fucking retard, the indians had their communal lands and as long as they pay their tribute of 2 pesos a year they had no obligation with the goverment.
This is literally described by a German protestant in detail if you don't believe Spanish sources.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_von_Humboldt
The injuns were considered literal infants and Spanish administrators promoted miscigenization with Spaniards and black slaves to promote economic growth and tax receipts

>>17782907
Ask your mother to read you some _sources_ about encomienda you fucktard.

>>17782912
Encomienda means servitude in Spanish and it is the equivalent of European feudalism. The system collapsed in a generation as encomiendas couldn't be inherited and wage labor was imposed then on. Why don't you just read primary sources of literal German protestants instead of seething?

>>17782814
hispanics are just spanish you lying retard, they are just colonial spanish

>>17783000
>just colonial spanish bro