Talk:Black legend/Archive 2

Not unique in European History.
The expulsion of the Jews and Muslims in 1492 has often been quoted as an example of the Spaniards' religious intolerance. It was, however, far from unique in European history.

The jews were expelled from a lot of countries in Europe before. Noviscum 18:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Somebody tell: "The Spanish are the bad guys. Everyone knows it. When they arrived in America they killed all the Native Americans. The English are the good guys. When they arrived in America with their Pilgrims they shared everything with the Native Americans. This fact can be seen in English America, where Native Americans have survived in harmony wiht the English. In fact, most people in English America is of Native American ancestry, while the bad Spaniards were racist murderers who killed all Native Americans. That is why most people in Spanish America are of pure European Ancestry. Just have a look at Mexico: virtually no Native American left. The poor native Americans did not have a chance in the hands of the bloody Spanish. Thanks to God for English America, that allowed them to survive in the millions, making them the main component of the populations of the United States and Canada. Just look at the population there, pure Native Americans in most cases."

If somebody says "i am good but the other (the foreigner!) is bad"... this person are just racist!!! And this person (anglo-saxon!) forget than his own people are the most killer in the world. Lot of native americans, but also native australian are be killed by the anglo-saxon in the past. the real racist are not the spanish people who was a "melting pot" of cultures & races, but the english people (the most white & racist on the world)! This is result of the position of united kingdom (a island of the north) and also by his people, who was only celtic and barbarous! They aren't "mix of race"! And for the fact than most people in spanish america are of pure european ancestry... it's wrong, for two reasons! First, the spanish american people was "mixed" with amerindians. And second, this people (the spagniards) are not pure euopean people, because it's a melting pot, more arabic & berber than european. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.164.3.178 (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Your "facts" about the genetic background of the Spanish people is almost as bad as your grammer. Detailed DNA studies conducted this decade proves the old fairy tale about Spaniards being of Arab/Berber decent as groundless nonsense based on Anglocentric racial supremism designed to debase the Spanish people. --Charles A 15:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)


 * I am Spanish, and for the racial myth of the Spaniards being more Northafricans and Bereber than Europeans, I would like to say some things:


 * First one, this myth was introducted in the XVI century, firstly in Italy and Germany (later in Holland, England and France) as a mean to offend and debase the Spaniards with a clear aim: To justify whatever the agression, difamation, traition or unfair behavior agaisnt Spain, the most powerful nation on Earth at that time. Furthermore, this thale originally included not only the Northafrican component (a myth which survives nowadays) but also the Jew component (See "Tree of Hate" by Philip W Powell). Thus, the Spaniards would be a mix of Jews and Northafricans, i.e., not humans, the lower among the lower under the Sun and therefore, as I said, whatever the agression agaisnt Spain was justified. It´s ironic that being the origin of this myth the rampant racism of the whole European People, still is Spain considereed by many people the most racist colonial power in History.
 * Second one, this myth shows clearly the contradictions and nonsenses of the Black Legend, since in one hand we were a mix of Moors and Jews, but at the same time we are accused of being intolerant to them. If Spain killed/expulsed all the Jews and the Moors, how could we be a mix of Jews and Moors? For the Black Legend supporters it doesn´t matter: We are a mix of Moors and Jews and we killed/expulsed all them off, full stop. The same happened with the Indians: we killed all them off. But, hey, Latinamerican people is mostly racially-mixed or indian. Don´t worry, the Black Legend bigots have the answer: We raped all the women.
 * Third one, in the XVI, XVII, XVIII or even XIX centuries there was not Internet or TV, and the common people used to die in the same village in wich they were born. So it is easy to understand than most of them believed the thales spreaded by the propaganda machine. But, leaving apart that the DNA studies show that the Spaniards are as Europeans as the Germans, what is really amazing to me is that nowadays, in the XXI century, there are a lot of people who supports such theory. That shows that the Black Legend is still around us, indeed.
 * Finally, this article is about the Black Legend, ie, anti-Spanish propaganda, and this should be focused on it. There are many books written by historians which talk specifically about it. The topic of how bad or how good the Spaniards were/are should be left for other articles (Spanish Conquista, Spanish Empire, or even Spanish People, etc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.59.180.241 (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You make some very good points. But I'm really of the opinion that Anglo-centric writers and historians purposely distorted history out of their desire to get revenge against the Spanish for what Britain could not acheive on the battlefield. It is a historical fact, that Spain was the one Empire that most sucessfully fought off the British, compared to others. That constant 200 years of hard warfare resulted in some very bad feelings about the Spanish that the English speaking world carries to this very day. In a recent movie called Elizabeth, The Golden Age, the Spanish ambassador was played by a very dark skinned and Arab looking man. The Actual Spanish negotiating party looked like the following picture on the left side of the portrait:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Somerset_House_Conference_19_August_1604.jpg

That portrait was commissioned in 1604 after the peace treaty, on mostly Spanish terms, was signed in 1604.

Throughout Anglo and Anglo American history, having dark skin was a bad thing and falsely darkening the skin of an enemy made it easier to hate them and drumb up war.--Scipio-62 20:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)


 * Not meaning to be rude, but I will ignore the previous comments, as apart from the rebuttal, I can't understand most of them. However they do seem to touch on a particularly problematic idea for this article. There does seem to be a subtext of ignoring all the bad things in Spain's past because either (a) they were exaggerated or (b) Spain was not alone, or others were doing worse. Because modern estimates have gone down from 900000 to 40000, or because instead of burning on the stake, these people were expelled, I hardly think it can be used as a rebuttal for "Spanish religious intolerance" (as that is the term used).
 * Forcing half a population to leave there homeland is hardly minor, as is the legal discrimination of a people. Just because the Inquisition only went after people baptised Catholic, it was still responsible for deaths and other crimes.
 * This article is at a risk of trying to discredit the Black Legend, and swing too far the other way. It is about the Black Legend, not an argument against it. Incidentally, this article is also at odds of most other articles touching on the subject, such as Spanish Inquisition, Anti-semitism in Europe, Jews in Europe, etc... Hrcolyer (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hrcolyer, again, this article is not about how good or how bad the Spaniards were, this article is about anti-Spanish propaganda, and noghing else. In order to explain how and why the anti-Spanish propaganda was created, comments comparing the Spanish behavior with the behavior of other colonial powers which were not eternally stigmatized despite they commited similar or even worse actions, is more than justified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.59.180.241 (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The black legend has been already discredited, and by british authors, at that. The Black Legend is understood, today, as the anti-spanish propaganda process started during the spanish empire period. Of course Spain, and the spaniards, made good and bad (and sometimes even evil!) things during the last four hundred years, but, in context, nothing that could have not been done (or even was done) by the other european countries. To my knowledge, however, no other country has such a robust Black Legend behind, and that is the point of interest. Leirus (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Leirus Leirus (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Basic Standards
Almost nothing in this article is supported by inline citations. It pervasively uses subjective terms such as "lurid" without offering any supporting examples, let alone supporting citations. Once again, Wikipedia gives inexplicable authority to someone's personal essay while everyone else sits around dithering about how to "fix" it. Here's the solution: stop arguing about content and start focusing on basic, inarguable academic (and Wikipedia) citation standards. Delete whatever does not meet them, whether you like it or not. If you not understand such standards, do not write an article. 76.23.157.102 (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The article describes, with no references or qualifications whatever, the use of torture by the Spanish Inquisition as a "myth." Spark240 (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You have to read a little more carefully there. It doesn't say that the Inquisition's use of torture was a myth.  It says that the idea that the Inquisition tortured thousands of Jews, Muslims and Protestants was a myth.  Which is correct, because the inquisitors' authority to torture suspects was limited to those who had at least nominally accepted the Catholic faith.


 * There are certainly problems with the article, but they're not so easy to fix as that. Pirate Dan (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I went back and looked again. The section in question has since been edited (not by me), but the version I was commenting on used the terms "exaggerations," "fabricated legend" and "an image." All this is in general description, not specifically addressed to the matter of non-Catholics. True, the word "myth" is used specifically to refer to torture of non-Catholics, but my understanding is that Inquisitors used their own standards to determine who was "nominally...Catholic," rather than allowing victims to go free if THEY didn't call themselves Catholics. So it seems clear that people who were, in fact, not Catholics were, in fact, tortured and killed by Spanish Inquisitors. Whether these amounted to "thousands" or not I can't say, but it is certainly misleading to argue that the Inquisition, as an institution and a period in time, was not a threat to non-Catholics.


 * Unfortunately, the present version of the section, though taking the opposite position of the previous version, is equally unsupported by citations.


 * I'm keeping with my previous feeling that the first best thing to do with this article is probably to delete most of it. Spark240 (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This article certainly has a lot of problems. The section about the inquisition is, simply, not serious enough, the main spanish inquisition article being much, much better. There is good, valid information here, but also there is a lot of random... dare I say junk?. The article needs a good rework.

I think the focus of the article should be the black legend itself, not the inquisition nor the american colonization. Of course the inquisition killed people, but, for example, ten times more women were burnt in germany during the middle ages than people were killed by the inquisition in its whole history. That is not something to be discussed here, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leirus (talk • contribs) 11:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"Enlightenment" and "Romantic travelers" subsections are not relevant
...in a discussion of the Black Legend. Should they be removed? LaNaranja (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The section on Romantic travelers is aimed at showing how negative perceptions of Spain were spread by those travelers, and thus is relevant. The Enlightenment part does seem far less relevant; I suppose the Enlightenment-era history of the West Indies could have helped spread the Black Legend, but the section doesn't say how, so I would agree with removing it.  Pirate Dan (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pirate Dan. I understand what you mean about the Romantic travelers section -- I should have just noted that it needs to be developed. I think the same problem exists with the Spanish Civil War section.

Im not familiar with the works that were named in the Enlightenment section, but maybe the editor who included them could come back and describe how they influenced the Black Legend's development.

Should the quotation marks be removed from "cruel, intolerant and fanatical" in the first sentence? "Perception" makes the quotes redundant IMO.

Also, what do you think about incorporating some of the definitions into sections of the article, and removing the "Definitions" section? For example, Powell's Tree of Hate definition (IMO, this is all JMO) is strong enough to go into the Introduction. Alvarez's would fit at the top of a paragraph on BL propaganda as a tool in national demonization. Even though Juderias originally defined it, the quote we have is secondary because of its emotionally slanted tone of dismay. Carbia's also seems full of emotion -- but an angry defiance that indicates an inflexibility (since his book was published in 1943 maybe its point *is* to be inflexible -- was it an early sketch of a White Legend?).

In the Carbia quote, should "to whom" be "to which"?

Thanks --  LaNaranja (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Saw no objection so I removed the quotation marks and changed "whom" to "which." -- LaNaranja (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Move the "definitions" to elsewhere in the article?
In the section "Enlightenment..." on this page, I asked about incorporating some of the definitions into sections of the article, and removing the 'Definitions' section.


 * For example, I think Powell's 'Tree of Hate' definition is strong enough to go into the Introduction.


 * Alvarez's would fit well at the top of a paragraph on use of BL propaganda as a tool in national demonization.


 * Even though Juderias originally defined it, the quote we have is not a definition, nor is the Carbia quote. Both these quotes are emotionally slanted. The article needs them but not as definitions IMO.

Does anyone agree? (Or disagree?) If we agree, how best could we work the quotes into the body of the article? Thank you. -- LaNaranja (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Modern science contradicst black legend.
The cruel Spanish were supposed to have anihilated the native peoples of the Americas. In fact, acording to modern science, and acording to anyone with a brain who knows Spain and the Americas, the population of the Americas ruled by the Spaniosh are still mainly of Native American stock:

http://www.centrelink.org/KearnsDNA.html

Iterestingly, Native Amerindians were indeed virtually anihilated in the North rules by the English and the Americans. Their bunch of lies and cheap propaganda is being increasingly cornered. Koon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.178.239 (talk) 11:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we add the current debt crisis to the black legend
Of course I'm joking. For disclosure purposes, I'm part Amerindian, part Spanish and part Jewish. Although I've never been a spanish-basher, I see some truth on the Legend but mostly this was created as propaganda for the British Protestant ascent to the top on the XVIII and XIX century.--201.116.149.85 (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * La leyenda negra. Just an opinion, but you are not the first to think of it. --Ecelan (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Weasel Words are at use many times in this article, its good but it needs some work.. It uses hearsay in an article about being way of the use of hearsay to give a bias for legends!
example "The Black Legend is said to be influenced by national and religious rivalries between Spain and other European powers in the sixteenth and seventeenth century as seen in the works by early Protestant and other European historians, describing the period of Spanish imperialism with negative bias" ~ who said? rivalry such as what, surely that would be something defined elsewhere? described with negative bias? surely that would warrant a quote from another article or publication?

Example "Exaggerated and lurid accounts of the Roman Catholic Inquisition in Spain were" Which statement, what was exaggerated?

Example "Some historians claim that the demographics of much of Latin America today" Who, when, where is the claim...

Example "The defenders of this point of view argue that Spain was prohibited by the Pope" What defenders? who? What pope. Argue? How did they argue? This statement is just hearsay without example.

This should be a definitive article, and sections of this article & Statements of this kind, should be reserved for use in the tabloid press.. Chapmad2 (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Another kick in the ass to the black legend and anglo propaganda
See:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080320205224.htm

This study shows how the Latin American populations, while diverse, are still to a large degree the decendants of the Native peoples of the Americas. And all this happened with the evil Spaniards. On the other hand, shall we ask what happened to those Native Americans in the US and Canada? Where are they? How many have survived? The century old Anglo anti-Spanish propaganda is being increasingly cornered. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.76.22 (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.76.91 (talk)   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk)


 * Everybody knows that Latin America's Native population was vastly higher than North America's, and that its immigration from Europe was much lower. Of course the percentage of Native blood in the resulting combinations is much higher in Latin America; no other outcome was possible.  That has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of anything in the so-called Black Legend.  Furthermore, it has been recognized for decades that native population in both Latin America and North America declined mainly from disease, and not the deliberate cruelty which European immigrants in both areas committed against the Indians.  So the number of survivors of European contact proves very little about how the Europeans in either area treated them.  Pirate Dan (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. You just cross the South border of the US and the difference is embarassing. Otto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.213.25 (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There's nothing embarrassing about there being more left of the huge Aztec/Mexica and Maya populations than of the sparse hunter-gatherer and subsistence farmer populations in the land that became the USA. And it's certainly not embarrassing that more people from all over the world immigrated to the USA than to Spain's colonies. Pirate Dan (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What is embarrassing is you implying that those sparse hunter-gatherer populations, for some reason kept within the border of today's USA, while the rest of Native Americans chose to live outside the US. So you are in one side of the border and there are Indians, and you cross the border and suddenly there's none. It has been estimated that there were from 10 to 25 million natives in North America. Where are they now? I know, they decided to cross the "border". --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If you follow Charles Mann (see 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus)The population of Mexico and the population of the rest of North America were about at 20 million each. Rapid spread of diseases reduced the North American population to about 2 million by the time the Anglo-American colonists began expanding westward. While there will still many Native Americans living on the land at the time, it wasn't nearly as many as the Spanish first encountered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.154.164.95 (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There are few true indigenous groups living on either side of the border. I know this because I grew up in Arizona, only 50 miles from Mexico.  Groups that do exist, like the O'odham, used to (until fairly recently) move freely across the border; sadly, increased border security no longer allows this.  The fact that when you cross the border, the population gets more "native" and less "Anglo" is because the vast majority of the population on both sides consists of recent immigrants, who have moved there from differing places (eastern U.S. for Americans, central Mexico for Mexicans). Benwing (talk) 05:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

== During St. Bartholomew's Day massacre there was more people killed than during more than three centuries of Spanish Inquisition ==

Someone seems to be having a problem with the following paragraph: "Proponents of the White Legend argue that the Spanish Inquisition was in many ways less cruel than practices in other parts of Europe, such as the suppression of Catharism in France. Thus, the Inquisition in a more favorable light when is compared with the French Wars of Religion (only during St. Bartholomew's Day massacre there was more people killed than during more than three centuries of Spanish Inquisition), Oliver Cromwell's conquest of Ireland, or the witch hunts in many Protestant countries." and has deleted it arguing that it is "original research"

That's a false claim, there's no original research there and it links to 2 Wikipedia articles:
 * St. Bartholomew's Day massacre
 * Spanish Inquisition

If you lack valid reasons to delete it, please leave the paragraph as it is.

Thanks, --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is OR to compare the atrocities of the inquisition with the Bartholomews day massacre without having a source that makes this comparison. You are not making the article more neutral with what you write - you are making it less neutral and less factual and you are not using sources. This is a problem. You are also misrepresenting what the white legend is - the white legend is Spanish nationalist history writing from the early 20th century that tried to paint Spanish colonialism as benevolent - which is just as incorrect as the exagerrated picture of the black legend. Kamen is not a white legend historian he is simply a historian and he is not debunking the black legend - he is simply writing history. ·Maunus· ƛ · 12:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see how adding an internal link to the French Wars of Religion (which by the way, was already there, not by me) and specifically to St. Bartholomew's Day massacre can be OR ??? If I'm linking to both:

there's no need to cite any sources, because these are to be found in these articles. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
 * St. Bartholomew's Day massacre
 * Spanish Inquisition


 * It is your opinion that the the white legend is Spanish nationalist history writing from the early 20th century, and nothing more than your own unsourced opinion, as opposed to what I wrote, namely that the recorded attempts to turn away from the Black Legend from non-Spanish scholars, such as William H. Prescott and his monumental History of the Conquest of Peru originally published in 1847. Nowhere in that paragraph said or implied that Prescott or Kamen were white legend historians, just historians who wrote about the White (and Black) Legend. Apparently you haven't even bothered to read the paragraph that you have so quickly deleted. Here it is again, so everybody can see that your claims do not hold:
 * "There are several recorded attempts to turn away from the Black Legend from non-Spanish scholars, such as William H. Prescott and his monumental History of the Conquest of Peru from 1916, originally published in 1847. Henry Kamen argues that Spain does not deserve blame for all of the actions of the Spanish Empire. According to his book, the Spanish Empire was a multinational enterprise, incorporating armaments from Milan, Genoese and German bankers, foreign sailors, German and Italian soldiers, Native American allies, and English and Chinese merchants."


 * In other words Maunus, you have:
 * deleted an internal link to another Wikipedia article that helped to explain how other European countries were as bad or worse than Spain as far as religious prosecution and killings was concerned.
 * Imposed your own unsourced opinion
 * Deleted a whole paragraph devoid of any POV, just because it didn't fit your own unsourced Point Of View.
 * I'm restoring the page again, and please, if you feel that something needs to be edited or deleted, do so, but don't delete the whole thing, because there are other parts (such as Pio Baroja's quote) that you have deleted nonetheless, without even bothering to give any explanations. --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You are the one who is deleting materials and removing citation needed tags (without adding citations). I have no problem with the wikilinks - but mentioning the Bartholomew days massacre will need a source that explicitlay compares it to the spanish inquisition in order to be included - otherwise the comparison is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. I am not inserting my point of view - since I didn't write the article as it was before your addition - I am only removing yours. You are the one who is adding material - to add material requires consensus. Anyone is allowed to remove unsourced material, but no one is entitled to repeatedly insert unsourced material that has been challenged.·Maunus· ƛ · 19:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Both the the Bartholomew days massacre and the Spanish inquisition are linked to sources (full Wikipedia pages) that explicitly compare the death tolls of both events, with ample citations and references. Here's the paragraph that you have deleted (and I'm restoring, again):
 * "Proponents of the White Legend argue that the Spanish Inquisition was in many ways less cruel than practices in other parts of Europe, such as the suppression of Catharism in France. Thus, the Inquisition in a more favorable light when is compared with the French Wars of Religion (only during St. Bartholomew's Day massacre there was more people killed than during more than three centuries of Spanish Inquisition), Oliver Cromwell's conquest of Ireland, or the witch hunts in many Protestant countries."
 * Click on the links that say St. Bartholomew's Day massacre and Spanish Inquisition for more info. I don't even know why I need to explain this to a Wikipedia administrator. --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 11:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source in articles. You have to use real sources that make the comparison.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is NOT the source for those Death Tolls estimates and I never said it was. The references are to be found at those articles, which is where they belong. --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not good enough.·Maunus· ƛ · 17:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not good enough just because you say so, or do you have any plausible arguments against the references to be found at those articles, which is where they belong. If you do, would you mind sharing them? Thanks --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We have this policy called WP:V which clearly states that providing a wikilink to another wikipedia is not considered sourcing. If you want to use those rteferences to support claims in this article you will have to bring those references here so that I and other readers can verify that they actually support the claims.·Maunus· ƛ · 20:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Slavery under the Latin American republics?
The article used to say that the newly independent Latin American republics subjected Native Americans to policies of enslavement; the new version says that there were "movements" toward enslaving them. There's no source for either version.

Either version sounds like, at best, a gross overgeneralization. All the newly independent Latin American republics abolished slavery after independence, at least four of them within ten years.

From the article Abolition of slavery timeline:

Chile: Independent 1818, slavery abolished 1823. Uruguay: Independent 1825, slavery abolished 1830. Bolivia: Independent 1825, slavery abolished 1831. Mexico: Independent 1821, slavery abolished 1829. Colombia: Independent 1810, slavery abolished 1851. Argentina: Independent 1816, slavery abolished 1853. Peru: Independent 1821, slavery abolished 1854. Venezuela: Independent (as part of Colombia) 1810, slavery abolished 1854.

For the last four republics, the delay in abolition was long enough that it's at least conceivable there could have been a movement toward enslaving the Native Americans for two or three decades, but for the first four it hardly appears likely that we're going to find a source that says they were newly enslaving Native Americans even as they were preparing to abolish slavery altogether. Is there some evidence here I'm missing? Pirate Dan (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You are right that this is fairly suspicious.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Peru and Ecuador reintroduced slavery after independence.
 * There are also several episodes of mass killings of Indians in Guatemala, Mexico and Bolivia after independence.
 * In Argentina, the American Indians are nearly exterminated by the colonists in a series of 19th-century wars. In 1878-9 the remaining Indians are either killed or are driven south into Patagonia in a campaign commanded by Julio Roca.
 * Generally speaking, the conditions of the natives deteriorated greatly, being dispossessed of most of their lands and devoid of any legal protection they had.
 * It wasn't until late in the 19th century that new legislation was enacted to grant some rights to the nativesin most South American countries. See this link for more info: http://jmavox.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!EB84AA70FA73A02!697.entry
 * --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the link. It does not back up the statement that Peru and Ecuador reintroduced slavery against the Native Americans or anyone else.  It is also without sources and is littered with historical errors (it even says there were no Indians in the 13 original states of the Union from 1780 onward!).
 * Mass killings of Indians have nothing to do with the issue. Certainly the independent USA committed such killings from time to time, and I'm willing to wait for a source that Latin American republics did the same.  But if the enslavement claim remains uncited much longer, I'm going to delete it. Pirate Dan (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If no sources are found, then it should be deleted. --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree - great we're all in agreement!·Maunus· ƛ · 20:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In Mexico the legal situation of the indians changed in that they no longer had either any special protection or any special obligations of providing forced labor - both of which they had during the colony. I know of no episodes of "mass killings of indians" in postcolonial Mexico - at least not ones that were in anyway comparable to what occurred during the early stages of colonization (there were of course the caste war and the a few other indigenous revbellions - but not comparable in scale). In any case introducing this information woudl require a source that makes the connection between this and the black legend. The link you provide is not a reliable source. ·Maunus· ƛ · 17:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Spain actually fared much better than any other European colonizing powers
I think that everybody will agree that if Historian Philip Wayne Powell writes that "Spain's three centuries of tutelage and official concern for the welfare of the American Indian is a record not equaled by other Europeans in overseas government of peoples of lesser, or what were considered lesser, cultures. For all the mistakes, for all the failures, for all the crimes committed, and even allowing for the Crown's motives of practicality and self-service - in its overall performance Spain, in relation to the American Indian, need offer no apology to any other people or nation", he is actually saying that Spain fared much better than any other European colonizing powers, not as well as. I'm therefore restoring the former. --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Powell says that Spain committed crimes and made mistakes just like all other colonial powers but needs offer no apology - that does not mean that it "fared better" just that it is no worse. Anyway Powells opinion is not fact and lots of (non-hispanophobic) historians could be found that contradict his opinion and say that Spain was no better than any other colonial empire.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Once again, Philip Wayne Powell writes that "Spain's three centuries of tutelage and official concern for the welfare of the American Indian is a record not equaled by other Europeans in overseas government of peoples of lesser, or what were considered lesser, cultures." Do you understand the meaning of the following: "a record not equaled by other Europeans"? I can't believe that you fail to see the facts that are put in front of you.
 * In case you have also forgotten what this particular thread was about, you objected to RafaelMinuesa (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "Not equaled by" means exactly that: not equaled. It is does not mean much better.  That's purely your own interpretation.  It could be slightly better, slightly worse, or anything else not equaled.  It could even be much worse, except that the "needs offer no apoloogy" language rules out that interpretation.  Pirate Dan (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "Not equaled by" means better or much better, it can not be "slightly worse" nor can it be "equal". And certainly, it can neither be "as well as". I can't believe that I have to explain this to a grown-up person. In fact, I do not believe that you don't know what "Not equaled by" means. --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "Not equaled by" of course means better - I agree, but botice that he at that point he only talks about the amount of "official" concern - that is of course because law and practice were two distinct things as noted by most historians from Gibson and Hanke to Keen. You cannot use that statement to suggest that Spain in fact treated their colonized subjects better than all other colonial powers - only that they discussed it more and passed more laws. This is true. The question of how the colonial practices compared between empires is still open.·Maunus· ƛ · 17:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, if historian Philip Wayne Powell writes that "Spain's three centuries of tutelage and official concern for the welfare of the American Indian is a record not equaled by other Europeans in overseas government of peoples of lesser, or what were considered lesser, cultures. For all the mistakes, for all the failures, for all the crimes committed, and even allowing for the Crown's motives of practicality and self-service - in its overall performance Spain, in relation to the American Indian, need offer no apology to any other people or nation", he is actually saying that Spain fared much better than or at least better than any other European colonizing power, but never as well as, which is the expression that you inserted, deleting the previous one.
 * --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Historian Philip Wayne Powell is not talking about the general treatment of the indians when he calls "Spain's record unequaled", but specifically about the "tutelage and official concern" which is not the same thing. When he talks about tutelage he means the religious education provided by friars - when he talks about official concern he is talking about the public debate about the ethics of colonization which existed in Spain earlier and to a greater extent than in any other Empire - but he is not saying that "Spain fared better than any other empire regarding the treatment of its indigenous subjects" - that is a different question, because the official concern only had a very limited effect on the actual treatment of the indians as most current scholarship attests to. ·Maunus· ƛ · 19:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, if historian Philip Wayne Powell writes that "Spain's three centuries of tutelage and official concern for the welfare of the American Indian is a record not equaled by other Europeans in overseas government of peoples of lesser, or what were considered lesser, cultures. For all the mistakes, for all the failures, for all the crimes committed, and even allowing for the Crown's motives of practicality and self-service - in its overall performance Spain, in relation to the American Indian, need offer no apology to any other people or nation", he is actually saying that Spain fared much better than or at least better than any other European colonizing power. The part that says "in its overall performance" maybe difficult to grasp, but that's the one he used, so there's not much we can do to make it more comprehensible to you.
 * That the official concern only had a very limited effect on the actual treatment of the Indians is only your opinion. If you say that "most current scholarship attests" to it, you have to provide reliable sources, otherwise is not good enough.
 * --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The part where he says "in its overall performance" he doesn't say "unequaled" but rather "owes no apology to any nation" - this is not the same as saying "fared far better than" but much closer to saying "fared as well as". You are twisting his words - we can fix this by quoting his exaact words. I am of course prepared to provide quotes to back up my statement about most current scholarship and its opinion on the limited effect of the Laws of the Indies on Spanish colonial practice.·Maunus· ƛ · 19:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The part where he says "in its overall performance" belongs to the same paragraph that contains "Spain's three centuries of tutelage and official concern for the welfare of the American Indian is a record not equaled by other Europeans". You are the only one twisting words and meanings, that's something that has become more than clear to everybody reading this thread. But please, go on playing dumb and misleading, what you are doing is actually very relevant to the very topic of this article, and helps understand the whole Black Legend concept.
 * --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No that is official policy. The policy is WP:NOT which shows that wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs, but to inform readers about the current state of scholarship. And your accusing me of promoting the black legend is just rich. ·Maunus· ƛ · 20:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Playing dumb and pretending not to understand is NOT Wikipedia's policy. Unfortunately for you everybody can now read the thread and judge for themselves. That;s what Wikipedia is about.
 * --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have faith that the general wikipedia reader will be able to decide from reading this thread who is playing and who's for real. That's why I have contacted the relevant wikiprojectsa to attract more editors to participate in this discussion. ·Maunus· ƛ · 20:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your opinion RightCowLeftCoast,much appreciated. But the issue is not whether X is actual fact, but whether X (Spain's three centuries of tutelage and official concern for the welfare of the American Indian is a record not equaled by other Europeans), actually means that Spain fared much better or at least better than any other European colonizing powers, not as well as any other European colonizing powers, which is what Maunus claims it means.
 * I understand that the thread becomes twisted after a while, but please read the opening paragraph again.
 * Thank you --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The white legend is NOT Spanish nationalist history writing from the early 20th century
Please stop deleting the following paragraph:

"There are several recorded attempts to turn away from the Black Legend from non-Spanish scholars, such as William H. Prescott and his monumental History of the Conquest of Peru from 1916, originally published in 1847."

Again, I don't know why I have to explain this, but 1847 is NOT the early 20th century, neither Prescott is a "Spanish nationalist history writer"--RafaelMinuesa (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Prescott is not a white legend historian - he is just a historian. Like other American historians from that time (e.g. Bourne and Bolton) he was of course writing from a more Spain friendly perspective than other historians - but saying that he "was trying to turn away from the black legend" is an anachronism - there was no black legend he could turn away from - he was simply taking a less negative view of the Spanish Empire. The black legend is a term invented in 1907 and the white legend is a term invented even later. If you want to associate any history writers with the white legend you will have tyo find sources that EXPLICITLY say that they are associated with it. Otherwise you are doing Original Research. ·Maunus· ƛ · 12:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also it goes without saying that just as the black legend is biased so is the white legend otherwise it wouldn't be a legend. The White legend is used explicitlt about apologetic history writing trying to portray Spain as completely free of blame - this is not what Prescoot is doing and it is not what Powell is doing. Legends are not neutral - history is.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, I said (3 times by now) that William H. Prescott nowhere in that paragraph I said or implied that Prescott or Kamen were white legend historians, just historians who wrote about the White (and Black) Legend. What is the part that you don't understand in that sentence? --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * What I do not understand is that you maintain that he should be included in the section about the White Legend when you admit that he has nothing to do with it.·Maunus· ƛ · 17:05, 9 January 2011 (UT


 * Again, I said (4 times by now) that neither William H. Prescott nor Henry Kamen were White Legend historians, just historians who wrote about the White (and Black) Legend. Therefore, since they were historians who wrote about the White (and Black) Legend, it seems appropriate to include their writings on the matter in this particular article. What is exactly the part that you don't understand??? --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * How could Prescott write about the Black or White Legend when he died 60 years before the term was invented?·Maunus· ƛ · 19:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's very easy to comprehend. Or maybe not. OK, I'll try to explain it to you in a very simple way: what William H. Prescott was writing about was the tradition of demonizing Spain and in particular the Spanish empire, by exaggerating the cruelty and violence with which the Spanish empire treated the indigenous colonial subjects in the colonies and religious and political minorities within their political dominion in Europe.
 * Please do not hesitate to ask again pointing out exactly the part that you don't understand. Thanks --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you provide a quote to a source that describes Prescott as an early revisionist of the anti-Spanish tradition of history writing? Or at least a source that describes Prescotts history writing as less anti-Spanish than earlier? Keen 1969 writes that the one of the earliest Anglo historians to adopt a less anti-Spanish viewpoint was Edward G. Bourne - he doesn't mention Prescott.·Maunus· ƛ · 20:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * And why should I do that, when all I'm saying is that you stop deleting the following paragraph "There are several recorded attempts to turn away from the Black Legend from non-Spanish scholars, such as William H. Prescott and his monumental History of the Conquest of Peru from 1916, originally published in 1847." If you stop twisting words and meanings would also help, but that's probably too much to ask.
 * --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You should do that because I am in my good right to delete the paragraph as long as it is not cited to a reliable source. Secondly you need to justify including the comment about Prescott in the section about the White Legend - you can only do that by showing that other scholars have connected Prescott to pro-Spanish or at least non-anti-Spanish history writing. Again this is standard policy.·Maunus· ƛ · 20:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Maunus is right. You need to have sources showing that scholars have made these connections. It doesn't appear that you have any. We can't use our own interpretations of what someone has written, which is what you are doing when you write that Prescott was turning away from the Black Legend Dougweller (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, I don't think I need any sources to prove that a book originally published in 1847 is NOT from the early 20th century as user Maunus claims.
 * Second, it has been agreed that the Black Legend refers to a tradition of history writing that demonizes Spain and in particular the Spanish empire, and that this tradition of history writing has extended throughout a long period of time. William H. Prescott with his monumental History of the Conquest of Peru (and other works) is turning away from that tradition. Of course, you don't have to know that, but if you bother to follow the internal Wikipedia link that leads to William H. Prescott page, you'll see that is pretty obvious that his work turns away from that tradition. It's like saying that you need references to assert that Rousseau belonged to the Enlightenment movement (probably not a very good example, I know, but I hope it gets my point across).
 * That's why I feel there's no need to overexplain that point, but in any case we are making no progress, and since you keep asking for those "sources showing that scholars have made these connections", I will provide the following source: http://books.google.com/books?id=NDkg6B8jWFQC&pg=PA323&lpg=PA323&dq=The+Conquest+of+Peru+prescott+black+legend&source=bl&ots=jHq_g5npir&sig=jpAFXG1cPOFX1LBzT9IIi8pr7tE&hl=en&ei=vOcqTbaaJ8a8rAej68GnDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Conquest%20of%20Peru%20prescott%20black%20legend&f=false
 * Please, let me know if you find that source acceptable. Thanks --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That source is very acceptable although it is not clear that the source says that Prescott broken with the black legend tradition - it says that what made his scholarship standout was that he based it on documentary sources written by Spanish conquistadors and that his depiction of the natives tended to describe them as barbarians.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This source clearly describes Prescott as a primarily anti-Spanish type historian, it describes him as having a protestant bias, and blaiming the pope and the inquisition and the decadence of Spanish monarchs for the decline of the Spanish empire. This directly contradicts the assertion that he turned form the Black legend, for which reason I will remove that statement. "Prescott's Paradigm: American Historical Scholarship and the Decline of Spain. Richard L. Kagan. The American Historical Review, Vol. 101, No. 2 (Apr., 1996), pp. 423-446"·Maunus· ƛ · 13:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Benjamin Keen's obituary of Lewis Hanke states that "From a historiographic perspective, Hanke was a leading figure of that twentieth-century revisionist school of U.S. writing on colonial Latin America that undertook to correct the errors of the so-called Black Legend literature of the past. Hanke and two other pioneers, Irving A. Leonard and John T. Lanning, created a revisionist intellectual history that stressed the beneficent, forward-looking aspects of Spanish colonial rule. Hanke, focusing on "the Spanish struggle for justice in the conquest of America" and the role of Bartolome de Las Casas in that struggle, made a major contribution to this revisionist historiography."·Maunus· ƛ · 12:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Spain was the first European colonial power to pass laws protecting the Native Americans with the Laws of the Indies in (1542)
Please stop deleting the following: "Spain was the first European colonial power to pass laws protecting the Native Americans with the Laws of the Indies in (1542)" Thank you --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This is of course correct - but this article is not here to debunk the black legend, it is here to describe what it is. Mentioning the New Laws (which is the correct name of the laws of 1542) is only relevant if we have a source that explicitly mentions this in relation to the black legend. If we don't then it is OR.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed, this article is here to describe what it is. Part of that description involves exposing the lies upon which the Black Legend is based. One of those lies is that Spain never did any attempts to forbid the ill-treatment of the Native Indians. Therefore it seems more than appropriate to point out that lie as one of the foundations of the Black Legend and link to the relevant Wikipedia page where more information can be found about the subject.
 * Additionally, I disagree that the Laws of the Indies is not the correct name. The Laws of the Indies (Leyes de Indias in Spanish) are the entire body of laws issued by the Spanish Crown for its American and Philippine possessions of its empire. They regulated social, political and economic life in these areas. The laws comprised a myriad of decrees issued over the centuries and the important laws of the sixteenth century, which attempted to regulate the interactions between the settlers and natives, such as the Laws of Burgos (1512) and the New Laws (1542). Throughout the five hundred years of Spanish presence in these parts of the world, the laws were compiled several times, most notably in 1680 under Charles II in the Recopilación de las Leyes de los Reynos de Indias (Compilation of the Laws of the Kingdoms of the Indies), which became the classic collection of the laws, despite the fact that later laws superseded parts of it and other compilations were issued. The 1680 compilation set the template by which the laws were organized.
 * So it seems appropriate to link to the 1680 compilation that set the template by which the laws were organized. Would you agree on that?--RafaelMinuesa (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * We are not here to expose lies that are not already exposed by standard historical scholarship. This requires that for every "lie" that you want to expose we identify a source that explicitly discusses that topic in relation to the Black legend - we cannot simply cherry pick historical sources that do not directly treat the black legend, that would be OR. The New Laws are only the laws of 1542 - which lasted only a few years before being revoked and which were never in effect in New Spain or Peru - all of the laws collectively are correctly referred to as Laws of the Indies - but those are not just those of 1542. ·Maunus· ƛ · 17:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That no lies can be exposed is your opinion, and only your opinion. If the lies can be documented as such and their exposure contributes to clarify several aspects of the article, then it is very appropriate.
 * Again "The Laws of the Indies (Leyes de Indias in Spanish) are the entire body of laws issued by the Spanish Crown for its American and Philippine possessions of its empire. They regulated social, political and economic life in these areas. The laws comprised a myriad of decrees issued over the centuries and the important laws of the sixteenth century, which attempted to regulate the interactions between the settlers and natives, such as the Laws of Burgos (1512) and the New Laws (1542)."
 * Therefore, it seems appropriate to link to the 1680 compilation that set the template by which the laws were organized.
 * What is the part that you don't understand???
 * --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Discrepancy between law and practice:sources
Here is a somewhat long quote with two embedded quotes from Keen 1971 "The White Legend Revisited: A reply to Lewis Hanke"(HAHR)
 * "It is not primarily a question of the sincerity of the Crown and the legislators who framed the Ordinances and other Indian protective legislation. The conservation of the Indian population-the real wealth of the Indies-was clearly in the Crown's interest. But laws remain mere words unless given effect, and the social reality in America (the presence of a powerful colonial elite determined to preserve its privileges) and the Crown's own narrow short-range interests (its need for revenue to finance wars and diplomacy and support a parasitic nobility) repeatedly made a mockery of the protective legislation. Manuel Gonzalez Prada masterfully summed up the royal dilemma:
 * There could be no other result; exploitation was officially ordered; it was proposed to commit inequities humanely, and to consummate injustices equitably. In order to eradicate abuses, it would have been necessary to abolish the repartimientos and the mitain a word, to change the whole colonial system. Without the toil of the American Indian, the coffers of the Spanish treasury would have been emptied.
 * Here a reminder is necessary. Some historians, fascinated by the frequent gap between Spanish colonial law and its observance, have overlooked the fact that in addition to the protective legislation, often flouted, there was a body of exploitative laws that was effectively enforced. John H. Rowe has done a service by calling attention to this fact:
 * Apologists of the Spanish colonial regime have claimed repeatedly that the laws themselves were humane and that the native complaints resulted from the failure of local officials to carry them out. Such a claim can only be made by a partisan selection of the laws considered. The laws which required forced labor at inadequate salaries were clearly exploitative, and so was the law which permitted the forced sale of goods at fixed prices. Other laws were, to say the least, discriminatory, like the ones which limited native land ownership to a low maximum figure while permitting the indefinite growth of Spanish estates. The assignment of Indians to forced labor in the mines equated them legally with Spaniards guilty of 'atrocious' crimes, for only the worst criminals were sentenced to this type of labor in Spain."
 * This clearly shows that scholars have generally seen a discrepancy between policy and its application in the Indies. It also Shows that there were as many abusive laws as there were protective ones - and that unlike the protective ones they were eagerly enforced. Keen goes on to cite the 16th century Spanish Judge Alonso de Zorita
 * "The wishes of Your Majesty and his Royal Council are well knownand are made very plain in the laws that are issued every day in favor of the poor Indians and for their increase and preservation. But these laws are obeyed and not enforced, wherefore there is no end to the destruction of the Indians, nor does anyone care what Your Majesty decrees. How many decrees, cedulas, and letters were sent by our lord, the emperor, who is in glory, and how many necessary orders are sent by Your Majesty! How little good have all these orders done! Indeed, the more laws and decrees are sent, the worse is the condition of the Indians by reason of the false and sophistical interpretation that the Spanish officials give these laws, twisting their meaning to suit their own purposes."

Then he goes on to cite another Spanish judge with a statement to the same effect and then he describes the fact that many scholars have commented on this:
 * "A commonplace of the modem literature on the colonial period of Latin American history is the gap between Spanish colonial law and its observance. "An interesting feature of Spanish imperial law," writes Charles Gibson, "is that it was so often disobeyed.... One of the most intriguing paradoxes of Spanish American history involves the straight-faced repetition of legal rules in conjunction with the persistent, and expected, violation of them." John Phelan sees this gap as inevitable, given the conflict of goals and standards inherent in the system.
 * "The distance between observance and nonobservance was a necessary component of the system. Given the ambiguity of the goals and the conflict among the standards, all the laws could not be enforced simultaneously. The very conflict among the standards, which prevented a subordinate from meeting all the standards at once, gave subordinates a voice in decision making without jeopardizing the control of their superiors over the whole system."·Maunus· ƛ · 09:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * And yet, when compared to other European colonial powers, Spain fares much better in both the enactment of the Laws protecting the natives and its enforcement, as it has been referenced multiple times above.
 * Those attempts to twist those historical facts are the very essence of the Black Legend. If you have to judge Spain at that time in History, then you MUST do it comparing it with the rest of colonizing powers. It does not make sense to criticize one country and not the rest, that were as bad, and in many cases even worse than Spain. If you feel that you should mention the ill-treatment practiced by the Spanish, you MUST also mention the ill-treatment practiced by the British, the Dutch, the French, the Portuguese, etc. in order to put the whole thing into context. You cannot try to hide the ill-treatment practiced by all those countries, because that might lead to the false conclusions that only Spain was involved or that only Spain was "as bad as", and therefore you will be contributing exactly to the same cause that the promoters of the Black Legend do. --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 10:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You will notice that this excerpt cites the opinions of at least six historians and uses sources. You have only supplied one quote from one source Powell (which you are even misrepresdenting to say something it doesn't say) and Powell has been accused in at least one review of going too far in "romanticising" the Spanish empire in order to debunkl the blacklegend in his Tree of Hate.(Berger, Mark T. Review of the third edition of Tree of Hate in Itinerario (2009), 33: 141-143 ) It is becoming more and more clear that you are not here to write an article based on scholarship but to pushyour own point of view regarding Spanish colonialism - which is not supported by general historical sources.·Maunus· ƛ · 11:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's your unwarranted (and insulting) opinion. My opinion is that you are trying to contribute to the Black Legend by making false claims (as it can be seen all over this very talk page). I have provided more sources than needed and you always disregard them as being "romanticist".
 * You have deleted every part that tries to point out to the fact that all European colonizing powers were at least as bad and in many case worse than Spain. Here you have another source: http://books.google.com/books?id=NDkg6B8jWFQC&pg=PA323&lpg=PA323&dq=The+Conquest+of+Peru+prescott+black+legend&source=bl&ots=jHq_g5npir&sig=jpAFXG1cPOFX1LBzT9IIi8pr7tE&hl=en&ei=vOcqTbaaJ8a8rAej68GnDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Conquest%20of%20Peru%20prescott%20black%20legend&f=false.
 * Please read the part that says that the British were as brutal and greedy as the Spanish. Also of interest is the part that connects the Black Legend to the blatant racist attempts to discredit Spain, while trying to make other colonial powers look good. But you already know that. --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 11:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not my opinion it is Mark T Berger's opinion which was warranted enouygh to be published in a peer reviewed journal. You have provided very few sources and only the Powell one has been characterised as romanticist - not by me but by a professional historian reviewing the book.
 * Why do you think that I think the British were less brutal than the Spanish - I don't. They were every bit as brutal as the Spanish of course. Notice how the book does not say that the Spanish "fared far better" than the British.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * What is insulting is that you suggest that I'm trying to push my own point of view. For your information. I have created a whole page with Bartolome de las Casa's quotes at Wikiquote (http://es.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bartolom%C3%A9_de_las_Casas), because there was none and I felt it was important to have his original writings exposed, in the same way that I feel is necessary to expose the twisted lies that make up the Black Legend.
 * That book does not say that, neither I said it did. We were discussing how the implementation of Laws protecting the natives set Spain apart from other colonizing powers. In that sense, it "fared far better" than the British. --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, as for your accusations that I am removing information suggesting that other empires were just as bad - I inserted this into the lead two days before you made this accusation: "By the end of the twentieth century history writing has turned to a more neutral depiction of the Spanish Empire which acknowledges the atrocities and violence of colonization without seeing the Spanish empire as more or less evil than other colonial empires, and which acknowledges that the Spanish empire was also the first empire to discuss and works towards the ethical treatment of its subjects, even though often the noble ideas failed to manifest into practice". When you make personal attacks please try to make sure that they are not immediately falsifiable by my actual conduct.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I can see that now. My most sincere apologies. --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "The Black Legend is a piece of a larger puzzle that transcends the particular moment of its origin. Gonzalo Lamana traced its ramifications in the history of ideas that filtered into the United States in the nineteenth century and that informed popular narratives such as William Prescott's History of the Conquest of Peru". This clearly suggests that Prescotts history writing was informed by the Black Legend tradition and did not turn from it as uyou suggest - this is also more in tune with how I have previously heard Prescotts work described. ·Maunus· ƛ · 12:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok I can see some descriptions later on that state how Prescott describes the conquest of Peru as justified by the barbarism of the Inca - that is a clear White Legend trend. This book is a good source and I thank you fro bringing it to my attention. The main point of the book seems to be that the Spanish empire and other "western empires" were different because they were based on a racist and capitalist exploitative ideology - which made it different from eastern empires such as those of the mughal, ottoman and chinese. It is definitely not a book arguing that the Spanish empire "fared much better than" other empires in its treatement of colonial subjects.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

In the conclusion (pages 313-14) the book states: "The idea we are trying (collectively) to advance in this book is that race as racism is a particular configuration that emerged in and during the EuropeanRenaissance as an intrinsic part of the consolidation of capitalism in the Atlantic economy and of Western expansion from the sixteenth century until today. In other words, race as racism goes hand in hand with the emergenceof capitalism as a new form of economic organization: the massive appropriation of land and the massive exploitation of labor during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (in the hands of western Atlantic European empires) had as its main purpose the production of commodities for a global market. Racism emerged as a discourse to assert the superiority of Western Christians and as justification for land appropriation and exploitation of supposedly lesser human beings. Today racist discourse has a similar function in keeping Chinese and Iranian expansion at bay and criminalizing immigration in the United States and in Europe. The Black Legend is a piece in the puzzle of Renaissance discourse on race that put forward the imperial difference among European powers."·Maunus· ƛ · 12:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Powell and the Jews
I have included under "origins" a longer explanation of Powell's thesis, which blames the Jews as principal creators of the Black Legend, in response to the Inquisition and expulsion, the Legend then being adopted and expanded by Germans, and then English, Dutch and Americans. The Inquisition and expulsion themselves, Powell claims were a necessary and justified response to Jewish "conspiracy." Pirate Dan (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Did he write that? I am going to have to get my hands on that book when I come home. That sounds like a very radical idea of the origin of the black legend which has not found support among any other historians who usually ascribe its origin to Las Casas, Girolamo Benzoni, the English and the Dutch protestants.·Maunus· ƛ · 09:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, Powell blames de las Casas, Benzoni, and the English/Dutch Protestants too. But he has the Spanish Jews first creating the Black Legend; the others just picked it up and ran with it.  He says "Jewish words and actions against Spain became a feature of the later Dutch-English-American Black Legend" (p. 50).  He dates German Hispanophobia earlier, to the Schmalkaldic League wars of the 1540s, but he traces the Jewish origins of the legend back to 1480 and 1492 (establishment of the Inquisition and the expulsion).  A lot of the book is available on Googlebooks.  Pirate Dan (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you have misread Powell. In pages 50 to 56 he sees the Jews increasing the receptivity to anti-Spanish propaganda and action elsewhere, even pushing it with their work in printing and publishing, but not as the creators of the legend. --Ecelan (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To quote from this article:

- Powell further argued that the Black Legend sprang originally from Spanish Jews, which later joined with a German version "crystallized during the Schmalkaldic War"; after that point, "Jewish words and actions against Spain became a feature of the later Dutch-English-American Black Legend." Powell went on to argue that "Jewish emotion, when aroused by the historical memory of Spanish Inquisition and expulsion, exaggerates and distorts, and certainly gives little shrift to the Spanish side of the story.".[21] According to Powell, given the position of Jews and conversos as "tax collectors; notable ostentation by wealthy Jews; blasphemy and ridicule of Christian practices . . . " and a list of other purported provocations by Jews, "[t]he Inquisition that Isabella established in Castile in 1480, for all the criticism - including papal strictures - against it, was an obvious necessity and solution, though reluctantly undertaken." "The near success of Jewish conspiracy and rebellion against Inquisition establishment, both in Castile and Aragon, bears eloquent testimony to the need for such a step."

Even if Powell doesn't claim that the Jews originated the legend, it seems that he feels that the Inquisition was justified by the actions of the Jews, without asking why Jews would try to buck the Inquisitional system. He's using the old antisemitic canards of conspiracy, unearned wealth, and blasphemy (against a religion they don't practice) to whitewash the actions of the Spanish Inquisition, giving little shrift to the Sephardic side of the story. He's claiming that the Jews provoked the expulsion, the forced conversions, and racist concept of "purity of blood." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.6.20 (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Racism and Eurocentrism
This article and the talk/forum following it creates a false argument between Spanish and Anglo historians in order to distract the public from the real issues of racism and Eurocentrism that are present in both the "Black Legend" and the "White Legend", and throughout this article. Spanish and Anglo historians may argue over which of the two of them was more brutal toward American Indians, but this is really just a way of ignoring and erasing the American Indian voice in the matter. This is an issue based in the White American and/or White European community that concerns itself with its own image - not the actual history of South America or Indigenous people. Any good historian knows that both the Spanish and the English played a unique but relatively equal role in perpetuating the physical and cultural genocide of the American Indian people. The "Black Legend" and "White Legend" also seems more concerned with tension between political groups in Spain than it does with fully acknowledging the ways in which Spain oppressed South American Indians. These political rivalries within Spain are of note by themselves, but when inserted into the debate about how to interpret South American history, they become a European misappropriation of what is largely the history of Indigenous and mixed race people. Warring Spanish political factions have no place in appropriating Indigenous history for their own causes.

At the beginning of the article, it claims neutrality by saying that it presents a "more neutral depiction of the Spanish Empire which acknowledges the atrocities and violence of colonization without seeing the Spanish empire as more or less evil than other colonial empires, and which acknowledges that the Spanish empire was also the first empire to discuss and works towards the ethical treatment of its subjects, even though often the noble ideas failed to manifest into practice." Again, the issue is not whether or not the Spanish empire was more or less cruel than other colonial powers. That is a very complicated matter and it should not be said that one colonial power was more cruel than another. The issue is the factual relation of Indigenous and South American history. The article also fails to produce any evidence that it is in fact attempting to fairly and in a neutral way relate the history here, as any in-depth discussion of the atrocities that were carried out by the Spanish (such as forced labor, or the caste system that was imposed by the Spanish and of which there are still traces today) in contrast to efforts by Spanish individuals to benefit or aid American Indians is absent. Then, quite contrary to the article's former declaration of neutrality, the "White Legend" section of this article goes on to say, "The White Legend emphasizes that Cortés's army consisted largely of Native American enemies of the Aztec Empire, and credits accounts of Aztec human sacrifice and cannibalism. These claims are supported by Archeological findings that confirm that the Aztecs, Mayans and other indigenous peoples of the Americas were involved in both human sacrifices and cannibalism.  As high as 250,000 human sacrifices were estimated to be carried out every year only in the Aztec Empire, with one in five children of the Mexica subjects being killed.[citation needed]"  In addition to needing a citation, this statement is highly problematic for a few reasons. First, it does not present the opposing point of view. Second, it seems to justify Spain's colonization of South American people by demonstrating the "savageness" of the Aztecs and Mayans and their ritual sacrifice, and by explaining that other American Indians fought in addition to the Spanish against the Aztecs without placing this fact in context. Though today, we are horrified by the concept of human sacrifice, these rituals played an important part in Indigenous religious and cultural ceremonies. It is not the place of White and/or European historians to judge the rituals of another culture, especially considering that a) Anglos and Europeans have a similarly violent history (Medieval torture tactics, burnings at the stake, impalements, women accused of witchcraft having their breasts torn off, atrocities committed against Muslims during the Crusades, the enslavement of people of color, etc.) and that b) there is a long history of racism within the Anglo/European historical tradition, as Anglos and Europeans have often sought, up until recently (though this racism has not been eradicated by any means), to portray non-Westerners and people of color and their cultural and/or religious/spiritual values as being somehow "savage" and less legitimate than Western culture and religion. To suggest that American Indians were better off because their religious and cultural practices changed with the arrival of the Spanish is racist. And while it is true that smaller groups of American Indians often fought against large American Indian empires like that of the Aztec, this is because there were preexisting conflicts between the Aztec empire and its neighbors, who were sometimes incorporated into or in some other way made to serve the Aztec empire against their will. The Spanish took political advantage of these preexisting conflicts when they sought to divide and conquer American Indian people; the American Indians who fought against the Aztec did not join the Spanish out of any loyalty to the Spanish empire, but because they had grievances against the Aztecs.

There are other traces of racism and Eurocentrism in the way that this article refers to Jewish and Muslim statements regarding this period of history. The article says, "Legally, the inquisition only had jurisdiction over Catholics. Thus, a person who had been baptized into the Catholic faith but was found to be secretly practicing Jewish or Muslim customs was considered to be a Catholic culpable of heresy - and punishable under the law. Like similar European policies before and after the fifteenth century, the Alhambra Decree ordered Jews to convert or leave Spain in 1492. In 1502 Muslims were also required to convert or leave. A decree in 1615 expelled the Moriscos." However, this fails to take into account the fact that many Jewish and Muslim people were forced to convert to Catholicism before and during the Inquisition. While Catholic law stated that nobody could be forcibly converted to Catholicism, a series of pogroms that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Jewish people assured that harassed and intimidated Jews would both convert and remain outwardly Catholic afterwards. The cost was high for those covert Jews who were caught practicing Judaism after conversion; they were often tortured or burned at the stake for heresy. For a long time, Muslims did not suffer as much as Jews because many of them wielded greater economic power than Jewish people. However, an edict from 1609 decreed that converted Muslims, or Moriscos, had to leave Spain "on pain of death and confiscation". So it was not under civil circumstances that Jewish or Muslim people converted or left Spain, as this article would have its readers think. In any case, any punishment enacted against a person who sought religious freedom was a violation of human rights, even if such human rights violations were not unusual in Spain or elsewhere in Europe at the time.

There are numerous instances in which the language of the article contains weasel words (please see Wikipedia's Manual of Style: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(words_to_watch)), including the repeated use of the term "alleged" and phrases like, "Exaggerated and lurid accounts..." The blatant bias in this article calls for its review and revision. I don't believe that the current author or authors have or will be able to fairly observe the subjects herein, and so I propose that Wikipedia seek out other authors to edit and further contribute to this article. Rmulhenny (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Rmulhenny


 * I don't know where you get off dictating that white or European historians can't say what people of other cultures did. WP:Verifiability is the standard for inclusion.  If it's verifiable, it goes in, whether the author is European, Native American, or a Fiji Islander.  If you have verifiable evidence that contradicts the current sources saying the Mexica practiced human sacrifice, go ahead and put it in.  If you just want to go on telling people that it's not their "place" to point to the historical evidence unless they come from a race or culture group that you approve of, forget it.  Pirate Dan (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not what Rmulhenny said; he or she never denies that the Mexica practiced human sacrifice, or that white historians should not examine evidence from non-European cultures. She or he is simply saying that European historians have no right to let their moral judgments become part of their argument for historical revisionism of the Black Legend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.6.20 (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, he did. He said it did not present "the opposing point of view" to the statements of the numbers of Mexica human sacrifices.  Such an opposing point of view would of course have to be supported by its own reliable source, which he conspicuously fails to provide.  He also wants the material removed because it is not Europeans' place to write about it.  These arguments against the material have nothing to do with its verifiability.  The editors' personal moral judgments, of course, cannot be included because they are unencyclopedic, but he did not point to any moral judgments in the article; he wants objective facts removed because they might lead to the readers making moral judgments.
 * Some of the article's pro-Spanish slant bothers me too, and where it's unsourced I've tried to remove it, but targeting properly sourced material for removal just because it's written by Europeans or reflects badly on Native Americans is beyond the pale. Pirate Dan (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

This has become downright propaganda.
"Versions of history less hostile to Spain including the white legend argue that the conquest of the Americas was not as negative as it is sometimes intentionally portrayed. The White Legend emphasizes that Cortés's army consisted largely of Native American enemies of the Aztec Empire, and credits accounts of Aztec human sacrifice and cannibalism. These claims are supported by Archeological findings that confirm that the Aztecs, Mayans and other indigenous peoples of the Americas were involved in both human sacrifices and cannibalism. As high as 250,000 human sacrifices were estimated to be carried out every year only in the Aztec Empire, with one in five children of the Mexica subjects being killed."

This paragraph on the white legend section should be deleted, it claims for citation but no un-biased historian in their right mind would attempt to justify such a bold claim that puts just about every native american nation had cannibalistic tendences and therefore deserved to be wiped out.

Furthermore, not the entire article denies the systematic cultural destruction commited by the spanish empire but hides justifications all over the article, the lot of which should be located under the white legend section and not inthe black legend section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedian45 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The information presented in this article directly contradicts another article
Hi, I was reading the article on the Spanish Inquisition. I followed a link in that article to this one. The information in this article is directly contradictory to the information contained in the other article. For example the "Black Legend" article states the following:
 * The popular image of moats, chains, and cries from rooms of torture are imagined exaggerations told by Protestant propagandists who had no first hand information or relied on a few individuals from Spain who had personal religious or political interests to serve by such stories.[12]

Whereas the "Spanish Inquisition" article says the following:
 * The application of the garrucha, also known as the strappado, consisted of suspending the victim from the ceiling by the wrists, which are tied behind the back. Sometimes weights were tied to the ankles, with a series of lifts and drops, during which the arms and legs suffered violent pulls and were sometimes dislocated.[60]

Obviously both of these statements exist on Wikipedia at this time but cannot both be true. There are other examples of these inconsistencies. As a simple user/reader who is not an expert in this field I cannot say which is the correct data. I merely point out the discrepancy in case a more experienced editor might be capable of reconciling the articles. Thanks, M4gill4 (talk) 05:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This article also says this: "Modern studies of the actual documents of the Spanish Inquisition show that it was no more cruel and bloodthirsty than other legal systems of the time.[11] The popular image of moats, chains, and cries from rooms of torture are imagined exaggerations told by Protestant propagandists who had no first hand information or relied on a few individuals from Spain who had personal religious or political interests to serve by such stories.[12] Torture was used but no worse than in other jurisdictions of the time.[13] Legally, the inquisition only had jurisdiction over Catholics. "·Maunus· ƛ · 11:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I just came across this article randomly, and I certainly agree that it reads as an apology (in the original sense) for Spanish actions, not as an objective evaluation of the subject. I can certainly believe that the cruelty of the Spanish was exaggerated in past centuries for political reasons, but that doesn't mean that they weren't cruel or did horrid things.  The above paragraph you quoted goes much farther than it should, and attempts to deny the reality of the horrors of the Inquisition.  The fact that things like "strappado" existed elsewhere and that Protestant propagandists probably exaggerated the horrors of the inquisition doesn't mean that "moats, chains, and cries from rooms of torture" is inaccurate. As many others pointed out, the fact that "legally, the inquisition only had jurisdiction over Catholics" doesn't mean that in point of fact, large numbers are Jews and Muslims were also tortured in the Inquisition.


 * As a point of comparison, I know relatively little about Spanish treatment of Native Americans, partly because here in America, history courses tend to focus more on mistreatment of African slaves, since it is much more directly relevant to recent U.S. history. In the case of slavery, for example, the treatment of black slaves in the American South was in some ways worse, in some ways better, than treatment of black slaves in Brazil, but overall both were pretty horrible.  I know very little about treatment of slaves in Cuba under Spanish rule, but I assume it was probably pretty horrible as well.  Descriptions of slavery in history books here tend to focus on what actually happened and don't try to defend or minimize it simply because lots of other countries did similar things.


 * I think this article needs to follow what argued above under "Spain actually fared much better than any other European colonizing powers", which is to present and summarize what the scholars actually say, without editorializing. Benwing (talk) 05:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

MARK THIS ARTICLE AS BIASED
I agree with the writer of the "Basic Standards" comment. This article doesnt explain what "Leyendas Negras" is:


 * A term used by defenders or apologists of the Spanish Catholic Empire and the Spanish Inquisition to rationalized the monarchy's anti-semitic & anti-muslim policies.
 * A term to attack academics who delve into the centuries old policies of "pureza de la sangre" and/or question Spaniards who claim there are no present day descendants of Spanish Jews or Muslims in the country. Almost invariable to even suggest Spain is a miscegenated country is reason for raising the "leyenda negra" attack.

Historians who dont paint Spain's as a 'white and european" country or don't pain the inquisition or imperial policies in a positive light are accused of weaving "black legends". This article doesnt address that; what it does do is serve as an apologia for Spain's Catholic empire.

I would suggest you mark this article for bias and some serious editorial work Lizasabater (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I would suggest to include Lizasbater`s comment in the article, as an irrefutable evidence of the fact that the Black Legend is a reality, and that it is still enjoying nowadays a good health indeed, as so many professional historians from different countries say.Avieso (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Lizasbater, you seem to be a victim of the Black Legend propaganda yourself. Check your comments and think about it. All empires did good and bad things. They introduced advances (technology, education, laws) but also caused pain on the invaded countries. This is common to all empires in history. Spain suffered conquest by the Roman Empire, but profited from Roman Law, infrastructures (roads, aqueducts and bridges) and ultimately the Latin Language and the Latin alphabet. Spain conquered many parts of America and the Philippines at a varying human cost, but also built infrastructures, schools, hospitals, developed trade and agriculture, introduced new animals, fruits and vegetables, introduced tools and construction skills, and spread Christianity, which you may or may not consider a contribution to civilization. The point is: all empires, from the most ancient to the 19th century colonial empires, produced positive and negative effects on the conquered peoples, in varying degrees.


 * In the case of the Spanish Empire however, the negative side has been repeated, exaggerated, and magnified persistently. Over and over you listen and read (in English-language history books) exaggerations about the "tortures" of the Spanish Inquisition, or the "attrocities" in the conquest of America. But then, hardly a mention of the genocide of American Indians, or Australian Aborigines by the British Empire during its existence. That is the Black Legend: a demonization of Spain and her history for political reasons. There is evidence of where and why this started. It started in the 16th century because of the rivalry between Protestant countries (like the Netherlands and Britain), and Catholic countries like Spain, who was increasing its power rapidly following the discovery of America. The Black Legend was historical propaganda against Spain, started by its political and religious rivals in Europe during the 16th century. As simple as that. However, the propaganda has been repeated in history books over and over by so many generations of (English-speaking) historians, that these distortions and misconceptions have sunk well into peoples' subconscious, even in Spain. That's the reality of it. There's no point in repeating such historical exaggerations for the nth time. At least there is a term to define this whole phenomenon. It's called the "Black Legend". Don't fall for it. JCRB (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, the wholesale genocide of the American Indians was pursued by the United States government, not the British colonial administration. English colonists were banned from settling West of the Appalachians. Jonchapple (talk) 10:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If you're talking about blankets and smallpox, it seems you've fallen for the propaganda my friend. The myth of smallpox being spread by the United States government to the American Indians using infected blankets is it's own 'black legend' against the United States. (See http://www.thefurtrapper.com/indian_smallpox.htm#Genocide, http://randombio.com/smallpox.html, and Blankets with smallpox)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canstusdis (talk • contribs) 21:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * In regard to the notion that Spain developed "infrastructures, schools, hospitals, developed trade and agriculture", I would like to point out that the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan had paved roads, aqueducts, public schools, written history, and state-run merchant guilds. Cortes ordered the city to be leveled during the siege to prevent the existing infrastructure from being used against him in battle, and all books written in indigenous scripts were burned by the church for facilitating "devil worship". The main argument for the bias in this article, in my view, is not that the Spanish were worse than other colonial empires (that's definitely debatable and arguments should be presented for both sides in the article). Rather, the bias is in failing to acknowledge that Spain was overwhelmingly bad for the natives. The death and destructrion of the conquest and subsequent colonization is hard to justify by any perceived "benefits". If this article only made the argument that other colonial empires were just as wicked, I'd be inclined to accept it, provided it presents counter-arguments as well. As currently written, it presents an apologistic view of history. 85.154.164.95 (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact that you fail to aknowledge that Spain developed "infrastructures, schools, hospitals, trade and agriculture" because Cortés destroyed Tenochtitlán during the conquest, smells quite a lot like Black Legend to me. Maybe I am one of those "apologists" that use to fool around the Spanish History, and the Nazi History, but not around the German History, or the British, French, Italian or Russian ones. The Romans wasted entire Iberic cities along with their roads, buildings, books, temples and paviments, killing from the babies to the oldies and nobody doubts that they developed "infrastructures" in Spain. The destruction of the Iberic culture was so hard, that even today we don´t know much about the Iberic culture, and their inscriptions still not decoded. In fact, there are not "apologists" of the Roman Empire, despite the amazing brutality the Romans showed during the conquest of Spain, a brutality which even the classic ancient Roman historians fail to understand or justify.


 * I would like to ask you some questions about that. I think I understood what you mean with overwhelmingly bad so I will use the expression in the same sense you did:
 * 1-Wasn´t the British Empire overwhelmingly bad for the natives in America? (I have been in the USA, I have crossed several indian reserves, just to point it) The percentage of native americans in the USA is 0.9%. The answer is obvious. By the way, when was the last time a native american was the president of his own original country? What about what the British did for the natives in Jamaica (0% of native americans), Kenia, Australia, South Africa, Afghanistan, India? Why doesn´t exist a British Black Legend?
 * 2-Wasn´t the French Empire overwhelmingly bad for the natives in Haiti? Just to point out that the percentage of native americans in Haiti is 0%. Again, the answer is obvious. What about Algeria or Congo? Why there is not a French Black Legend?
 * 3-Wasn´t the Dutch Empire overwhelmingly bad for the natives in Suriname? Just to point out that native americans represent the 3.7% of the population in the Suriname. Why there is not a Dutch Black Legend?


 * And now the key question:


 * 4-Why are this countries not constantly and eternally forced to "aknowledge" first of all and in the central and most prominent part of their History, the fact that they where overwhelmingly bad for the natives in each one of the countries they conquered?


 * The answer is that they don´t have a Black Legend because they didn´t suffer during centuries a biased and systematic propaganda agaisnt them, i.e., the Black Legend is unique to Spain (despite Julián Marías said that the USA was starting to have it´s own), and it is a field of research for many proffesional historians from different countries.


 * You say that it is debatable whether Spain was worse or not than other European colonial powers, and I agree. But the main problem I see in this article and in all the articles regarding the Black Legend is that the topic of the article is continously and eternally missed, it is not about if Spain was good or bad, better or worse than others. It is not about if Spanish Empire was overwhelmingly bad or good for the natives. The topic of the article is the Black Legend and the comparisions with actions carried out by another colonial powers in the past, or pointing out "lights" in what is a hughe black hole (only for Spain) regarding the relationship with the natives, are not intended to "apologize" anything, but to show up the core of the Black Legend: That the Spanish actions are juzged, described and evaluated by very different rules to those used to juzge, describe and evaluate the actions of other European colonial powers. In my opinion, it has been that way during the last 5 centuries, and it is still being that way nowadays. Avieso (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all, the comment that the USA committed the genocide of Natives in North America and not the British is false. Have you eve heard of the Pequots in Massachusetts? No, because there were all killed by English colonists (Pequot Wars). The natives in Virgina were eliminated by royal colonists, destroying the Powhatan Confederacy. Countless of other tribes were eradicated from history by English colonists. This is just as bad as any other war of conquests by other European powers. However, let me ask you something. Spanish colonizers viewed native people as innocent beings ripe for evangelization (Read Spanish Imperialism and the Political Imagination). Spanish colonists intermarried with the natives, assimilating them into their culture. The English colonists? The Puritans in the New England colony viewed them as devils. They didn't intermarry with them or welcome them into their culture. At first, they did try to convert them, but eventually they decided it wasn't worth it. Instead, they waged war on them. I'm not saying that the Spanish were morally "better"; however, it is important to note that all imperialistic endeavors lead to a great deal of pain and violence. The issue with the Black Legend is that it demonizes the Spanish (and Portuguese) without demonizing the actions of the English, French, and Dutch empires. If you are going to do one thing to one entity and person, you should do it to all the perpetrators. If were are going to paint the British as these great sentinels and harbingers of justice, power, and greatness, then we should do the same for Spain and her empire. - Arod1571.
 * I assume you're talking to me, in which case you're misrepresenting what I've said. Whilst there were plenty of zealous puritans who did, the English/British administration in the 13 colonies never pursued the wholesale destruction of the American Indian people. They were hardly "harbingers of justice", etc., but the way they treated the Indians was no worse than how they'd treat French/Spanish/other European foes. It was a war to take their land, but war is different to genocide. Indian removal and the Trail of Tears were acts of genocide, and they didn't come until the British were well shot of what became the United States. It's also worth noting that around that time the United Kingdom had outlawed slavery and actively sought (at considerable expense to itself) to enforce this new ban around the world, whilst the US almost split itself in two because so many supported the practice. JonChapple Talk 11:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this article goes too far in the other direction
This article works too hard to make the Spanish seem nicer than they really were. It talks about the misconceptions... but it doesn't address what -actually happened-, which I think would be more helpful in putting it into perspective. It reads like White History ;D But more seriously, it does need some fleshing out, as it is excuses, which isn't really what this article should be about. Rather, it should be how it was exaggerated beyond what actually happened, though obviously discussion of the interbreeding, ect. is very important as well. 206.125.94.244 (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This article goes so far to show that the Black Legend was an exaggeration that it doesn't even mention the brutality practiced by the Spanish that created it in the first place. Specifically, I'm referring to the Spanish conquistadores in the Americas and how tales of their deeds circulated around Europe, leading to the Black Legend. Yes, it was highly sensational and the Black Legend was hypocritical, insofar as other European colonists in the Americas could often be similarly brutal. But the Spanish were not blameless and there is some substance beneath the exaggerations of the Black Legend. This article doesn't even mention that. The Spanish weren't vilified completely randomly. RobertM525 (talk) 06:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If you have to judge Spain at that time and place, then you MUST do it comparing it with the rest of colonizing powers. It does not make sense to criticize one country and not the rest, that were as bad, and in many cases even worse than Spain. If you feel that you should mention the brutality practiced by the Spanish, you MUST also mention the brutality practiced by the British, the Dutch, the French, the Portuguese, etc. in order to put the whole thing into context. You cannot try to hide the brutality practiced by all those countries, because that might lead to the conclusion that only Spain was involved and therefore you will be contributing exactly to the same cause that the promoters of the Black Legend do.


 * Yes, but Spain began expanding its colonial empire before most of the other European powers. It didn't have any immediate comptetitors in the Americas in the early 1500s except Portugal, and they were a little behind. Spain wasn't following the status quo, it was establishing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.154.164.95 (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * So we are not even allowed to tell the truth about what they did, unless we talk about everyone else's??? What about the german brutalities in WwII, I don't see Unit 731, aka the Japanese human experimentations center mentioned whenever most articles about the german human experimentations are talked about, nice logic...  You just want to cover their asses...  I don't see why we shouldn't include what they did...  It's not right to demonize, but it's also not right to censor/hide the facts either.--70.134.77.134 (talk) 08:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Spanish Netherlands
"Modern studies of the actual documents of the Spanish Inquisition show that it was no more cruel and bloodthirsty than other legal systems of the time.[11]"

"[11] Henry Kamen gives the figure of about 100 executions for heresy of any kind between 1559 and 1566. He compares these figures with those condemned to death in other European countries during the same period, concluding that in similar periods England, under Mary Tudor, executed about twice as many for heresy: in France, three times the number, and ten times as many in the Low Countries. Kamen, Henry (23 November 2000). The Spanish Inquisition: An Historical Revision. Orion Publishing Group. p. 99. ISBN 1-84212"

I don't understand this sentence. Rather, it's very clear, yet the footnote it cites completely contradicts it. The Low Countries were ruled by Spain during the period cited. So the Spanish Inquisition was clearly the most "cruel and bloodthirsty" of the various legal systems according to this author. Even though the Low Countries had their own government, it was ultimately ruled by Phillip II, who certainly did not take a 'hand's off' approach to the Low Countries-- to be intellectually honest, the article must include the Low Countries as a part of Spain as well. The Dutch War for Independence, or 80-Year War, would not start until 1568, and it could be argued that the viciousness of the Inquisition was one of the instigating factors for the rebellion.

I also question the incredibly small time period to support this statement, whether pro- or anti-Spain. Seven years in the entire history of the Inquisition is, by any standards, a ludicrous sample to judge which country/government was the most active participant in it.

Dread Pirate Wesley (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The Netherlands had it's own Inquisition, completely independent from the Spanish one, as Phillip II noted himself.
 * --Ecelan (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Philip II had the habit of writing both a public letter and a secret letter to the half Flemish daughter of Carlos I, Margaret of Parma, the second kind ordering the opposite of what appeared slightly moderate in the first. When Margaret met the IIIth Duke of Alba in person, realizing this man would not accept any compromise while Philip had given him sufficient power to supersede her will, she resigned as Governor of the Netherlands and went to live in Italy. I guess that what then happened with Alba as Governor for instance to Mechelen, Zutphen, Naarden in 1572, and —when Philip had abandoned his soldiers without pay forcing their marauding— to Maastricht, Aalst and Antwerp in 1576, did not make her change her mind. More than a quarter, according to some sources nearly a third, of the population of Mechelen fled the city, to out-of-reach Holland; 60% fled from Antwerp; not so for Zutphen: Fadrique, the later IVth Duke of Alba, had left no survivors there. The IIIth Duke explicitly ordered his son to kill all people at Naarden, despite their immediate surrender; they were locked in the church, it was set on fire, and all 3,000 burnt alive. It had not taken any Inquisition.&#8203; ▲ SomeHuman 2011-08-02 05:07-16:12 (UTC)


 * Do you have any sources saying anything relevant to the article or did you just want to vent your oppinon? --Ecelan (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is rife with NPOV material. As an example: the "alleged" intentions of Spain to colonise the Netherlands. The policy of the Spanish crown was to dissolve the Estates General and bring the Netherlands under direct Spanish rule. Now, calling Marnix van Aldegonde a propagandist for using the image of colonisation may be correct, but the end result is the same: a semi-independent constituent realm of the Holy Roman Empire was to be disbanded and turned into a direct subsidiary of the Spanish crown, with the intent of taxing them to pay for the ruinous costs of the Spanish imperial ambitions, both in the colonies and in the Germanies. If that is not a de facto colonisation, what else is?

This whole article reads as an apology for factual atrocities committed under Spanish rule, including quibbling about the nationalities of the mercenaries fighting under Spanish command in the talk pages. In so far as the Dutch and the English made hay of the Spanish atrocities, the Black Legend is true, but the current state of the article is trying to deny even that the atrocities were comitted at all.

I tagged the article NPOV accordingly.Mvdwege (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

"Spanish Fury"
You can only say the attacks are known as "Spanish Furies" if you can reference the use of the term in English, which, as I have asked you for this at Spanish Fury without success, I presume you can't. If you want to talk about the Dutch term as used in Dutch, that's another matter, but such terms are often not translatable. In English "Spanish Fury" seems only to refer to Antwerp, which why that page is problemmatic as it is. Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC) &#8203; ▲ SomeHuman 2011-08-02 21:55-23:18 (UTC) &#8203; ▲ SomeHuman 2011-08-02 22:59- UPDATED 2011-08-03 01:23 (UTC)
 * Your assumption is utterly ridiculous. Because it means that there would not be a "computer" outside the English-speaking countries until someone figures out some local name and manages to enforce it. And that would be difficult if the proper originally foreign, e.i. English, term could not be used in the explaining. I can call it anything I like as long as no-one can understand what I am talking about? Thanks! With Englishmen, and certainly other speakers of English, in the 16th century having paid less attention to the Netherlands than its locals, which did not improve as time went by, it is quite possible that no English language source has heard, let alone published, about e.g. Naarden having suffered a Spanish Fury and one might not even realize that Mechelen suffered an English Fury that obtained its name precisely because there had been a Spanish Fury before. The latter term is simply the translation of the Dutch term Spaanse Furie and there is no difference of any connotations. In case you realize what the last one, in Antwerp, means - then you also realize what the earlier ones were. Ignorance about other than the Antverpian version, does not mean it is otherwise banned from the English language; it is the opportunity to learn that there went more on in the world than had been realized. That is kind of the purpose of an encyclopaedia: The English language Wikipedia is not the compendium of what is known by speakers of English. It attempts to be the compendium of what is known anywhere in the world, expained in a language that speakers of English can understand. If your attitude on permissible usage of words would have been applied during the last few centuries, 90% of this WP would need to be erased. This is so evident, that I suspect your double revert against delivered sources is an indication of a hidden agenda: I guess that you do not like the proven facts to become referred to by a known term that self-explains what happened: It was bad enough that there had been a Spanish Fury – and now, suddenly, there were many — Ouch!
 * Needless proof of strictly the same usage apart from Antwerp, and even broader usage of the concept 'Spanish Fury', in English — this is just a grip:
 * Mechelen — Ib. (letter 1573) — Mechelen "1580": obviously confounding the English Fury with the Spanish Fury — Maastricht — Ib.; — modern broad usage: Havana — outraged Madrid; — in everyday English, the straightforward meaning of both words: Spanish fury (small f) — homonym
 * What I'm looking for is usage of the term referring to incidents other than Antwerp in works by native English-speaking historians. This is not ridiculous, it is what is needed to justify the page Spanish Fury as it now is, and your edit here. After what was obviously a fairly thorough search you have not produced any, which suggests they don't exist. Clearly amateur translations from the Dutch by people who, like you, assume than a Dutch phrase must have the same meaning in Dutch as in English, will not do. I ignore your wilder fantasies, but you might look at my talk page for a similar discussion re the differences in meaning between English "Flemish" and the Dutch/Flemish equivalent, also at Talk:Beeldenstorm, where a Dutch-speaking opinion would be useful. Johnbod (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Despite your politeness, which I appreciate, it appears that what you are looking for is, any means that eradicates what does not match your personal wishes. Because your demands, and your last change of the article, if applied in general, would need that same compromising work-around just about every tenth word and erasing many statements and most terms from the article (and any other article about non-English matters). And it does not clarify anything at all, it's just a nuisance to the reader that draws his attention away from understanding the topic. I had an edit conflict, and just updated the above list of examples; some were replaced by better ones. Please, check it out.

For the usage of historical terms in English in the sense exactly matching what historians state in other languages, one only needs a simple dictionary. For demonstrating that a term is used in English, even a blog by a Chinese written in reasonable English, would do fine. What you then would need to find to be able to uphold your POV, is a widely recognized historian who states to have seen the identical Dutch term being used for each of a series of events, and then still explicitly stating that the borrowing of the Dutch term by speakers of English can only be appropriate for the one place called Antwerp.
 * NEVER does WP allow to demand sources to be written by native speakers of English, and the scientific world NEVER demands such before a term is allowed to be coined or to obtain a broader meaning than the already coined one. There can only be disputes whether that broadening is desired or perhaps best replaced by a new or other term. Such dispute however, does not arise for an existing term being applied for other than the originally recognized matters, while the similarity is obvious. That is how we got to know Aztec pyramids as well as Egyptian ones. And it works about the same in any other language and the translations from such language to English: a broadened usage in language M for word m, becomes also broadened in language N for word n. Unless there would be an untranslatable difference. In our case, the original meanings of the words, and their being used as a coined term, are in both languages identical; and broader application for similar related events does not cause any different aspects in these languages.

&#8203; ▲ SomeHuman 2011-08-03 02:56-03:09 (UTC)
 * 'Spanish' = relating to Spain, 'fury' = rage. Just as in Dutch 'Spaans' and 'furie'. Spanish fury is plain English. Spanish Fury is a coined term: For a historical fury by Spanish. Just as in Dutch. There were more, precisely such, historical furies. Hence... If tomorrow we discover a President Obama of some minor island in the Pacific, in whose language the word president would be 'prraseedant', he would be President Obama in any English language text regardless the thereby caused ambiguity being a nuisance for numerous professionals and laymen alike. It remains obvious that, without the clear context of another place for which 'Spanish Fury' in English or Dutch has been noticed, the Spanish Fury would mean the one at Antwerp (as the usage in Dutch: it was simply perceived much wider at the time, and had more immediate important consequences). Just like President Obama would be the American one, unless clearly indicated otherwise.


 * You don't seem to get it at all! Wikipedia follows WP:RS for the meanings of terms like everything else. I have repeatedly asked you to produce RSs to demonstrate that the term is used by them as you claim in English and you have failed to produce them. In the minor island example you quote, we would refer to major newspapers etc, and there would be no problem. I don't really understand your last point; in English the term refers to one thing, in Dutch it is evidently generic. This doesn't seem unusual - Beeldenstorm/Bildersturm (essentially one period in Dutch and English, various in German) are equivalent. A "blog by a Chinese written in reasonable English" is not an RS, and would not be an acceptable reference for English usage at all. The onus is on you to produce acceptable RSs in native/professional English using the term re Mechelen etc.  Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

&#8203; ▲ SomeHuman 2011-08-03 03:45 (UTC) &#8203; ▲ SomeHuman 2011-08-03 03:52-03:55 (UTC)
 * You do not want to get it: It may help that I clarified a few sentences a moment ago (edit conflict again). Your claim that Spanish Fury can not possibly be generic, is not sourced or supported, and does not make any sense. I have proven all that there is to be proven. Stop reverting and trying to make the Spanish Fury something utterly different than other terms. Just like in your German example, the terms in Dutch and in English are generic as well: there have been many Iconoclasms in the world. Despite some people in some countries perhaps thinking that the one event they heard and read about, is the one-and-only that allows being referred to by the to them familiar term, and feel that their language must reserve that term for what they know. They, and you, are simply wrong. Completely.
 * As you are mistaken about Reliable Sources: These can be in any language; and there must neither be a published translation nor some borrowing by a native English-speaker, before one uses the translated terms on this here WP. The burden is for you to find any WP guideline that disagrees. I know it does not exist.
 * You did not even begin to demonstrate why a translation of the Dutch term (precisely as it was done before, for Antwerp), would suddenly require some unnamed other translation (or even remain Dutch as your edit in the article had tried), for a same remarkably identical event in Mechelen etc.
 * [ insert a posteriori, same day 23:58 (UTC), for completeness of argumentation: ] Johnbod's remark " In the minor island example you quote, we would refer to major newspapers etc, and there would be no problem." — in its context, assumes that major newspapers (or whichever source Johnbod acknowledges) in English language do report all that exists and ever existed. That is an outrageously erroneous assumption. And a dangerous one as for Johnbod it means that WP must not mention anything that was not reported by that limited selection of sources. Together, the false assumption and inadmissible selection explain why Johnbod perceives a problem as the use of the Dutch term for 'Spanish Furies' outside Antwerp was rarely noticed by English-language sources. — The British Empire was not yet in sight and English language a mere barbaric extravagance of notoriously isolated islanders, who would have noticed their having missed the usage of a coined term? To their descendants, even the extremely rare historian understanding Dutch so as to ever notice the broader usage for already properly described events that compared to the one at Antwerp had little consequences afterwards, the term itself may have appeared of little interest to readers of English-language papers and even comprehensive works. It does not follow that we have to remain ignorant or need to agree, let alone forbid using the term in English on the English language WP.
 * For the Chinese I had emphasized is used. That meant: a term occurs. In English text. It would suffice, unless proven to have been used wrongly. A more broad or generic usage is not necessarily wrong, and definitely not automatically as you seem to think, as that proof or demonstration is what you did not attempt to provide — understandably, because none of my provided examples was by a Chinese...

[aligned] Perhaps, instead of theoreticizing, let alone wikilawyering, try to see it from a reader's point of view (I did rephrase the last sentence so that "Spanish Fury" no longer immediately requires 'at Antwerp'): Is it not very clear that our disputed term —in particular because it is used here for the first time in this article in a sentence, explicitly calling it 'the first' and showing it in plural— must have been used generically? That may come as a surprise, but it is accurate and not misleading. And the generic usage does not violate English language. Furthermore, the phrasing several events remembered by that name occurred is different from stating there were several ...: It suggest this generic usage not to be the most often used or perceived usage in English: its native speakers would not remember an intrinsically Dutch event. And then, for the clearly most often understood event, it does show the coined term. All is perfectly clear whether one is quite familiar with the topic or not. I think, that's the idea of writing article prose. &#8203; ▲ SomeHuman 2011-08-03 04:43-04:53 (UTC)

P.S.: I now also replied your earlier still unread comment at Talk:Spanish Fury. &#8203; ▲ SomeHuman 2011-08-03 06:38 (UTC)


 * Not only is Johnbod right about what he is saying, I'm asking myself, what has the information you added to do with the "Black Legend"? --Ecelan (talk) 06:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer to use the Dutch term in this article rather than "Spanish Fury". One lone reference to the English language term isn't sufficient. I could be pursuaded otherwise if there are multiple examples of reliable sources which use the term "Spanish Fury". Majoreditor (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I amended SH's text to the Dutch, with English translation, but was reverted diff. As far as I can see it is only a term used in English for the Sack of Antwerp.  I'm on holiday now, so I'm just looking in for now. The real problem is not with the passing reference here, but at Spanish Fury itself, which SH has built up from what was just a redirect to Sack of Antwerp.  Johnbod (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In general, for the proof of the usage of the term, see my additions to the discussion at Talk:Spanish Fury.

&#8203; ▲ SomeHuman 2011-08-08 18:02 (UTC)
 * Ecelan, you might take a look at how a paper by Peter J. Arnade, “Spanish Furies: Civic consciousness during the Dutch Revolt”, could be described. WP articles can and will be read as stand-alone sources of information. Therefore, one must not depict descriptions as if the base facts might be mere legendary. The known true facts must be shown in short before one may show concern about the ways these have been presented: the concern would be utterly misplaced and violating the principles of any encyclopedia, if missing or insufficient distinction between fact and exaggeration could misleadingly cause doubts about all the mercilessly caused cruelty and horror that one encounters about those Spanish topics. Please be aware that Arnade also wrote the "Spanish Furies: Sieges, Sacks, and the City Defiant" chapter in his books Power, Gender, and Ritual in Europe and the Americas: Essays in Memory of Richard C. Trexler and Beggars, ..."'', for which I do not think 'Civic counciousness' to have been the sole specific topic.


 * Then, according to WP policy WP:NPV, you will have to add "all the mercilessly caused cruelty and horror" the Dutch did on the war, and there were some, I assure you. You will also have to compare what happened in the War with how the warfare was done at the time, if what the troops of the king of Spain did was usual behaviour or not. Another thing you should mention is that from the 54000 soldiers under the orders of the Duke of Alba, 30400 were Flemish and only 7900 Spanish. And of course the "paper war" that was being fought at the same time. And so on, and so on. Do you see where this «can and will be read as stand-alone sources of information» leads? We will have to explain here the complete Dutch war of independence.
 * Anyway, you seem to have the wrong impression of what the «black legend» is. The historians that talk about the black legend don't deny that cruelties happened, and that people suffered, they don't talk about legend in that sense. They talk about the exaggeration of those facts in such a way to imply that no one else in the world has done anything comparably cruel, in such a way that hundreds of years later, people still talk about it as if it defines the Spanish character. That is what the «black legend» is about.
 * But you seem so convinced of your truth, that my words will make no difference. Anyway, get out of your comfort zone and read a bit from authors that have written about the black legend: Henry Kamen, William S. Maltby, Philip Wayne Powell (a bit too radical, but some truths in his book) or Charles Gibson. Historians already have done the first step.
 * --Ecelan (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ecelan, you assume that I do not know what the Black Legend is about. I think I know, though I am not a specialist. Let's assume that I've heard of Lumey and of the reputation of the time's Cromwell. In fact, I am surprised that so little attention is given to antispagnolismo, just a short phrase under 'Origin'.


 * It may surprise you that I do agree with many of your statements, be it not with your tone. Best get into a comfortable chair before reading what people write: I did not demand that "all the mercilessly caused cruelty and horror" must come in the article, just that it would no longer read as if perhaps nothing of it were true. As it stands now, it reads too much like Holocaust negationist writings that are still criminal in several countries. What I would suggest, is per chapter (the Netherlands, the New World, Italian states) a few undisputed statistics and links to specific articles, followed by what 'Black legend' belongs to the chapter.


 * I don't have the precise figures, but I thought that the Army of Flanders under Spanish command, did not have just Spanish and Flemish soldiers, but also e.g. Germans and Walloons - at least at some moments. I guess that your figure of over 30,000 might include those, and that your Flemish refers to the present region, not to the historical county: there would have been soldiers from Brabant as well.

&#8203; ▲ SomeHuman 2011-08-09 06:37-07:14 (UTC)
 * My earlier addition to the article was also inspired because the piece on the Spanish Fury era had disguised Spanish responsibility by presenting only the mutineers, who in fact behaved just like they had been used to during their years under proper military command by governor Alba's son Fadrique.

¨When you know that the greatest of English text- books has not even the name of the man who first sailed around the world (a Spaniard), nor of the man who discovered Brazil (a Spaniard), nor of him who discovered California (a Spaniard), nor of those Spaniards who first found and colonized in what is now the United States, and that it has a hundred other omissions as glaring, and a hundred histories as untrue as the omissions are inexcusable, you will understand that it is high time we should do better justice than did our fathers to a subject which should be of the first interest to all real Americans¨ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.202.64 (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

overhaul needed, will
Some parts of this article are just (badly written) polemics. I am referring in particular to the bit about Henry the Eighth and the Star Chamber. There are many old (c. 2010) discussions here on the talk page but apparently the work wasn't finished. So I am going to make some bold edits here. Bazuz (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I made a start. If you can help, it'd be great. Bazuz (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Last time i spent a good deal of time looking for sources, but I never really found one I thought was just perfect - i.e. an objective treatment of the phenomena and the historiographic debate, just scholars accusing eachother of promoting black and white legends. I'll take a look again. I do remember that "Rereading the Black legend" by Walter Mignolo and others seemed useful. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you have Kamen's books? I have read one of them (Road to Empire, which deals with other aspects) and think he is an objective scholar. But I haven't read his books that deal with the specific issues raised here. Bazuz (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have those but thanks for bringing them to attention. I don't believe in objective scholars, but i think that even your ordinary biased scholars are able of giving fair and objective treatments if they really put their mind to it. But does he write much about historigraphy? The problem I've been running into is that Black legend is frequently mentioned in discussions of Spanish history, but that there are few actual meta-historical treatments. (His wikipedia article makes him sound kind of like a White legend historian) ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a mighty change. You delete a reference by a scholar, one of the biggest experts in the Spanish Inquisition, to accommodate the (obviously slanted) opinion of an anonymous user? To see through the arguments of user Dread Pirate Wesley would be as easy as reading Wikipedia's Spanish Inquisition: there were no tribunals in the Netherlands belonging to the Spanish Inquisition.
 * I'd suggest you read some books before editing this article. At least you should be able to distinguish between the Spanish Inquisition and the Medieval Inquisition.
 * Cheers. --Ecelan (talk) 12:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

OVERHAUL NEEDED BECAUSE OF WRONG APPROACH
The problem with this article is that it's full of original research. It should only be giving brief summaries, with citations, of what the major authors on the topic, Julián Juderías, Wayne Powell, etc, say about it and its "white" counterpart. Then the arguments on the talk page will not be about what happened in the Americas, the Netherlands, the Inquisiton, but is this article representing these writers well? Provocateur (talk)

Just in case it is of use, this is the on line article of the Encyclopedia Britannica:

Black Legend Article Free Pass

Introduction Related Contributors & Bibliography

Black Legend, Spanish Leyenda Negra, term indicating an unfavourable image of Spain and Spaniards, accusing them of cruelty and intolerance, formerly prevalent in the works of many non-Spanish, and especially Protestant, historians. Primarily associated with criticism of 16th-century Spain and the anti-Protestant policies of King Philip II (reigned 1556–98), the term was popularized by the Spanish historian Julián Juderías in his book La Leyenda Negra (1914; “The Black Legend”).

Images

The Black Legend remained particularly strong in the United States throughout the 19th century. It was kept alive by the Mexican War of 1846 and the subsequent need to deal with a Spanish-speaking but mixed-race population within its borders. The legend reached its peak during the Spanish-American War of 1898, when a new edition of Bartolomé de las Casas’s book on the destruction of the West Indies was published.

Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The Britannica's approach is to the point. The problem with this wikipedia article is that it is full of original research and synthesis; it should only be about what leading scholars say about it. The problematic part in this article is the long third section subtitled "Elements". This section is all made up by Wikipedians dipping into history and talking about the inquisition, the Dutch revolt, colonial history, the romantic writers etc. None of this comes from the Julian Judieras and the other scholars mentioned earlier. This is pure WP:OR and this is why the talk page is filled with disputes over historical facts when in fact this article should be about the "black legend" thesis, not the history Spain.Provocateur (talk) 10:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * In any case, you must always ask for references, you can't delete whatever you want. The bibliography in the article is large. You have read through it, and then we can start talking about original research and synthesis, or not. --LTblb (talk) 03:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Reversion
I reverted a series of edits by User:Fortis est veritas, because I found them to be non-neutral. The article needs to describe what the Black legend is (a way of referring to a tradition of Anti-Spanish historiography) without adopting either the white legend view (that the allegations against Spain were unjustified) or the Black legend view (that the allegations were justified). The description of what the legend is should be written objectively by presenting both sides, and by describing clearly who has made which arguments in the literature. The edits that I reverted where argumentative, focusing on describing specific allegations as injustified. This I think is the wrong approach. A better approach would be to describe who has made which allegations and who has argued against them. Were are not here to decide which tradition of historiography is correct or which claims or allegations are incorrect, but to represent the debate neutrally. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Impossibility of making a good article from this
Whoever has studied the Black Legend will understand that it is impossible to make a fair article from this, for several reasons: 1-The black legend is one of the deeper prejudices in the world, and what is worse, is a prejudice which is considered politically correct (unlike antisemitism, or racism). 5 centuries of propaganda can't be ereased from the folks mind just by making some comments. I am right now reading the bestseller "Why Nations Fail" by Robinson and Acemoglu. The first 20 pages are a grotesque oda to the Black Legend in its purity. References to Bartolomé de las Casas (read "Father Las Casas: his double personality" for more references to his mental problems, by Claudio Sánchez Albornoz) couldn't be missed. Warm praises to the book can be read in the first pages, coming from the New York times, the BBC or some Nobel laureate in economics. The Black Legend is still alive today, and it enjoys a great health. Hundred of thousands of people reading and enjoying a modern Theodore de Bry war propaganda remix. And the World goes on spinning...Reading that some historians say that the Black Legend does not exist nowadays is like reading that some scientists say the moon is made of cheese. Discussing about the Black Legend today is like discussing about racism in the XVI century. You already lost before starting. 2-Latin american countries use to make the Black Legend one of their pillars for their national identities. Trying to talk objectively about the Black Legend with them is like telling the Pope that God does not exist. People from these countries, the very descendant of the conquistadores, are specially agressive reverting comments or data that don't match the Black Legend tale exactly. Many generations must pass before this prejudice based on colonial war propaganda falls down, as happened with antisemitism, racism, or machism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.148.22.19 (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you consider to be the source of pervasive anti-Spanish sentiment in contemporary society and scholarship? Honestly I don't think there is a lot of the original Black Legend in circulation today. There is criticism of the Spanish colonial empire, but it tends to be motivated by a general critique of imperialism and colonialism rather than anti-Spanish sentiment. Most historians I know who write about Spanish colonialism are quite able to do so onbjectivly. I also dont know any historians of Las Casas who take Sanchez Albornoz speculations about his psychology seriously.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, 178.148.22.19 explains clearly what he thinks is "the source of pervasive anti-Spanish sentiment in contemporary society": "5 centuries of propaganda can't be erased from the folks mind just by making some comments".
 * --Ecelan (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. Yeah, I would not take Sanchez Albornoz too seriously on las Casas. Anyway, it still surprises me that the account of one person with an agenda, that cannot be confirmed by any independent accounts in any way, has been accepted as the Truth without any doubt.
 * P.S.² Powell mentions the anti-Spanish slant of the educational system in the USA studied by the American Council on Education in the 1940s; Powell himself reaches the same conclusion in the 1970s. John L. Robinson studied the same in 1992 for Britain in "The anti-hispanic bias in British historiography" and Jesús Troncoso García did the same in 2001 in "Enfatemática del antiespañolismo en los textos de historia en países europeos y americanos" for Europe and South America. There you have some recent consequences/forms of the Black Legend.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Black Legend. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110927032644/http://www.naarden.nl/index.php?simaction=content&mediumid=4&pagid=201&stukid=345 to http://www.naarden.nl/index.php?simaction=content&mediumid=4&pagid=201&stukid=345

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)