Talk:Spanish colonization of the Americas/Archive 1

There's no such "Americas"
Concerning the use of the term "Americas" There's no such Americas. America is the whole Continent. The usage of the term America to refer to the United States is wrong, imperialist and it leaves behind the other countries with a vast richer culture. This article should be called "Spanish colonization of America" and so the contents should be changed in this sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertico (talk • contribs)


 * Regardless of whether the term "America" should be used to refer to the United States or not, I think you are interpreting the phrase "the Americas" in a different sense than the one that is most commonly used. Your interpretation takes "the Americas" to mean "two Americas - the United States and the rest of the continent".  The sense that I think is most commonly understood is "two Americas - North America and South America".  If you use this sense of the phrase "the Americas", then there is nothing objectionable about it. --Richard 07:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't forget Central America!--Lord Kinbote 14:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

'Effect on Natives' pro-Spanish bias

 * "However, Spain was the first European colonial power to pass laws protecting the natives of its American colonies..."

Because they were the nicest colonial power, it seems to read. Of course, the reason the Spanish were the first to pass such laws is becaue they were the first to colonize -- in 1542, there was no real European presense in the New World except the Spanish! Further, to imply that the Encomienda system was beneficial to the natives is flatly incorrect.

The last two paragraphs are the worst, though; I don't need to explain why, just take a look at them! The author doesn't describe Spanish treatment of natives, he tries to rationalize it, and to explain why the Spanish have an undeserved bad rep. Regardless of the accuracy, these items don't belong here, and they clearly reveal the bias of the author. --Xiaphias 04:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, yes. Spaniards have an undeserved bad reputation. Just take a look at the Black Legend article. Having said that and taking in account that what you've read is true, a colonial empire is still a colonial empire, with inequality, slavery, torture, death, mysery and this kind of stuff going on there... Just if later colonial powers had been better instead of plainly worse...

colonization, conquest, ideology
Notions of conquest and colonization do not have to be mutually exclusive. It will be important to define what these terms mean when used in this article. Generally, conquests tend to be historical phenomena with a major millitary dimension of shorter duration than projects of colonization. From a historian's point of view, the ethnic identities of today's inhabitants of these lands are not necessarily useful as testimony to specific instances of both conquest and colonization as they occurred in history. Complex and particular historical questions cannot be evaluated by a single conclusion about the effects of a 500-year span of history. To be sure, different interpretations and historical models of conquest and/or colonization would result when considering 16th-century Yucatan, 17th-century Potosí, or 18th-century Baja California.

Moreover, it is very difficult to to postulate uniform and unified attitudes and policies of large institutions, like the church or the state. The church was divided systemically both horizontally (holy orders, administrative departments, etc.) and vertically (hierarchy of priests, bishops, archbishops, etc.). For example, holy orders competed with each other in the Americas. Clergy exhibited different attitudes toward native peoples. That is not to say that brutality and oppression were absent. However, generalizations that cover so much intellectual territory can never be completely categorical without cheapening the complexity and nuance of history.

I believe bias in some sections of this article reflects important ideological world views of recent times, and they should be removed. However, I suggest that a section be added on how notions of the Spanish conquest (or Spanish colonization) are used in modern times to support of different ideologies (such as Che Guevara's "mestizo culture" or liberation theology). 71.146.78.30 06:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget that england also desired to establish trade and slavery here too!

Gabrielzorz 17:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal
removed:

- However, Spain was the first European colonial power to pass laws protecting the natives of its American colonies as early as 1542 with the Laws of the Indies. The Laws of the Indies consisted of many regulations on the encomienda system, including its prohibition of the enslavement of the Indians and provisions for the gradual abolition of the encomienda system. It prohibited the sending of indigenous people to work in the mines unless it was absolutely necessary, and required that they be taxed fairly and treated well. It ordered public officials or clergy with encomienda grants to return them immediately to the Crown, and stated that encomienda grants would not be hereditarily passed on, but would be canceled at the death of the individual encomenderos. -   - The Spaniards were committed to converting their American subjects to Christianity, often by force, and were quick to purge any native cultural practices that hindered this end. However, most initial attempts at this were only partially successful, as Native American groups simply blended Catholicism with their traditional beliefs. On the other hand, the Spaniards did not impose their language to the degree they did their religion, and the Roman Catholic Church's evangelization in Quichua, Nahuatl and Guarani actually contributed to the expansion of these American languages, equipping them with writing systems. Many native artworks were considered pagan idols and destroyed by Spanish explorers. This included the many gold and silver sculptures found in the Americas, which were melted down before transport to Europe. -   - In most areas, the Natives and the Spaniards interbred, forming a Mestizo class. These and the original Americans were often required to pay taxes to the Spanish government and were expected to obey Spanish law. In other areas, the Natives stayed ethnically distinct, and continued to resist intermingling for more than two centuries. Nowadays, descendants of Native Americans (mostly of mixed ancestry), constitute a major part of the population of the countries that comprised the Spanish Empire in America (with the exception of Argentina, Uruguay, Costa Rica and the countries of the Caribbean. Several Amerindian languages, like Quechua and Guaraní, have reached rank of co-official languages in some of the countries where they are spoken.   -    - The accounts of the behavior of Spanish conquistadors from both inside and out were part of the source material for the stereotype of Spanish cruelty that came to be known as the Black Legend spread mostly by Protestant foes, such as the Dutch and the British. As a result of this political propaganda campaign against the Spanish, little is known outside the Hispanic world about certain Spaniards, such as the priest Bartolomé de Las Casas, who defended Native Americans against the abuses of the conquistadores. In 1542, Bartolomé de las Casas published A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies (Brevísima relación de la destrucción de las Indias). His account is largely responsible for the passage of the new Spanish colonial laws known as the New Laws of 1542, which were used in an attempt to protect the rights of native inhabitants (the governor and men sent to enforce them were killed by rebellious conquistadores). These New Laws of 1542 established a very early - compared to British or French colonies - abolishment of native slavery (see the Valladolid debate).

'''These paragrgraphs have nothing to do with the spanish effects on heath section it was in. Gabrielzorz 17:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)'''

"Clean-up" header still needed?
A substantial amount of work appears to have been done on this article since April 2006, when "clean-up" header was posted. Does it still need this header? While there is still work, the article appears as good as most WPedia articles. Is it time to remove the "clean-up" header? NorCalHistory 18:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I concur with the removal of the clean-up header. NorCalHistory 23:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Seocnded. errr, thirded? 158.165.5.52 20:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"Columbus conquers Hispaniola" passage
The whole section is remarkably poor. Bias probably could be tuned down and the quotation marks floating around could all be eliminated.

138.16.40.158 02:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent change in summary
Hi. The Spanish cavalry and their forces were very tenacious, but common sense dictates that the "Conquerors" of America were the native inhabitants. There were almost a million native auxiliaries fighting the civil war. Without these forces, the Spanish simply could have not colonized America without the whole of the European continent. The real catalyst for the fall of the great Empires were the Muslim cannons they used. In coherence to that fact, their sloops or brigs (boats) were their real weapons.

1) Copper spears in closed ranks could effectively stop and dismount cavalry. To be successful, volleys of cannon fire or musket fire would be needed. To advance costs casualties---to effectively do this without the attrition factor against repetative guerilla tactics, multitudes of Indian auxiliaries would be needed for skirmishing.

2) Atlatls could penetrate chain mail at short ranges and steel armor if the spear is used as a long range weapon---gaining massive momentum from the pendulum-type swaying of the flexible spear.

3) The Mapuche learned to wrought iron and use horses and cannons effectively. Their use of horses to simply move infantry allowed the implementation of the local, over total superiority which, in turn, allowed them to cause some 90,000 native and Spanish deaths---along with countless civilians from both sides. In fact, they were one of the most effective wagers of war who ever lived... Ex: They had these guys called "Clown soldiers" who were used to simply to lure fire to cost the Spanish $$$. I forget said, "These Indians are in the habit of doing clownish things: throwing themselves to the ground, dancing, advancing---suddenly retreating." They had special soldiers who had hooks on their spears to carry away dismounted knights. Francisco Nunez (the happy captive) reported that the massive Mapuche clubs could "fell a horse".

4) Slings, which used very dense lead-type stones, could crush a steel helmet and break a sword in half from 50 feet away.

5) Bronze, stone, or copper maces were used very effectively against Caballeros (knights).

6) In the Amazon, the warriors would often lure them into the swamps and ambush their barges after pouring blood in the vicinity (crocs).

7) The Zacoteca long bows were extremely effective. They could produce tremendous velocity because they used their feet as the left arm and their arms as the right arm. I don't know if they could could penetrate steel, though.

8) Even with the natives, they lost against the Chichimecas.

9) Wave after wave of Spaniards were killed in trying to subdue the Maya. Only after they recieved help from the Xiu Maya (some 40,000) did they manage to subdue the Chichen Itza.

10) Cinnabar covered darts or "dust-bombs" could easily poison any soldier causing massive distortians in the senses before hand---eventually killing them.

11) Hornets could cause a massive delay in time and morale if they're exposed to crossing a hornet-covered bridge (not fatal).

Basically, thats it. InternetHero (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

that was very good. Unsigned comments of 14:05, January 25, 2016  user:174.24.33.227

South-east United States and even further north
The article omits any mention of Florida or parts further north. A colony, Pensacola was founded and abandoned. St. Augustine, Florida the first continuously-settled European colony in the future United States was founded. Several landfalls, territorial claims, and attempts at colonization were made (cf. Lucas Vázquez de Ayllón). In fact, the entirety of North America was considered by Spain to be Spanish by virtue of the Treaty of Tordesillas until a intervention by King Francis I of France in 1533. Of course, at this time there was still some doubt if these lands were part of Asia or a new continent. Does an expansion of this information belong in this article, some other article, or should it be a new article? patsw (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. Some relevant articles that come to mind, on the northern areas of Spanish colonization: Spanish Florida, Spanish Texas, Santa Fe de Nuevo México, Alta California, Commandancy General of the Provincias Internas... and certainly others. Of course the page could be expanded with more info on areas to the south as well. Pfly (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What does "bum of the people" mean?
I was tempted to remove it, but would hate to impose my ignorance on others. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable will make some of the fixes mentioned in this discussion page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.138.93 (talk) 04:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

INFOBOX
should there be an infobox ? 69.157.68.212 (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC) UNknown

No neutral article.
Compare this article with the british colonization article or any other about the european colonization.

This could be the most biased artical on wikipedia. "While native culture was marred by Spanish proselytization..." or "and the cruelty and exploitation of native labourers and imported African slaves is undeniable, regardless of the putatively noble intentions and efforts of the Spanish crown and elements of the Catholic Church" this artical is extreamely anti-catholic. It clearly violates the neutrality policy.
 * Well, to be fair, Spanish occupation was far more brutal that that of the other two European powers. France and England desired colonization; Spain desired conquest. --141.157.106.115 13:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To be fair, yours is an uneducated guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.35.2 (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

== In the Composer's Defense. The composer of this "biased" article was merely stating the facts. The Roman Catholic church was, as a whole, quite brutal in its imposition of an alien faith on the indigenous peoples of Mesoamerica and in South America. One has only to review the Spanish post-conquest codices to find evidence of the barbarity of the friars, and their exportation of the Holy Inquisition to the shores of the New World in the name of their god. To state that this article violates the neutrality policy is to ignore the very testimony of Spanish friars themselves. RCP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.3.48.40 (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

In the Composer's Defence: In researching an essay on this very topic, it is hard to ignore that there are two very different points of view in research. If anyone has come accross Bartolome de las Casas' "A short account of the Destruction of the Indies", it will be noticed that there is a very strong Anti-Catholic bias in this account. As very little written evidence exists, the only evidence either comes from Spanish missions, thus a rosey picture of the conquest is painted, or those Westerners who saw it as brutal, thus a brutal picture is painted. Since the Inca, Mayans and Aztecs were largely illiterate, there is very little in terms of written records to know exactly what happened.

More black legend and Anglo propaganda
This article:

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

Is very interesting because it shows how the populations under the Spanish empire have survived to this day in the majority, mixed or otherwise. The Anglo model has been sadly much more different. Where are these native populations in North America and what per centage of the present population do they represent? Because they happen to be the majority in Latin America.

But then read this article and then this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_colonization_of_the_Americas

This is a shame for Wiki, a place of propaganda and big lies. Where is the intelligence of the people behind these articles. Why is Mexico full of people of Amerindian ancestry and the US and Canada so empty of the same people. Where did the real genocide take place. I am not going to change anything, but someone should. This is a great example of the nature of the people behind these lines, mainly ignorant Americans who are among the worst genocidal peoples on earth (built their nation upon the anihilation of the Native American peoples) and love ignorance or propaganda. But people are believing you less and less. Anyone can see what I mean in the two articles and in this discussion page. These Americans who had a South Africa like society until the very 1970s. What a bunch of genocidal liars. Jan.

Maunus has deleted these comments and the link to the article. Is there anything that is not true. Is it not about time that reality is decribed the way it should. Again, just read this article, and then the English colonization one, for a comparison. Who do they want to cheat. People are not that stupid anymore. Take a look at the English or North European model of colonization in America, Australia, South Africa, and then at the Iberian or Spanish one and then again read the articles that I have mentioned, and the Spanish one is far from good but in comparison a wonder from heaven. This degree of progaganda is intolerable. Northern Europeans and North Americans have been getting away with it for centuries, but people are not that stupid anymore. This article should be deleted or written again, if objetive criteria are to be taken into account. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.153.158.30 (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Terrible, terrible article. What a shame for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.24.202.216 (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Something could certainly be said on the Spanish approach to the indigenous people, but the reason Mexico still has a high proportion of indigenous people compared to America is that before European conquest the indigenous population in Mexico was far higher than anywhere to the north--with cities and complex societies that dwarfed anything northwards. Mexico was the demographic and cultural center of indigenous North America. Compare--Spain also colonized and ruled Texas for a long time. The indigenous population within Spanish ruled Texas was next to zero by the time of the Texas Revolution. A better case might be made for California or Florida, and something could certainly be said on the basic approach indigenous peoples by the Spanish vs the British, French, etc. Still, the notion that the present-day proportion of people of indigenous ancestry in Mexico means the Spanish were nicer is flawed. Demographics is much more important. Mexico was able to sustain epidemics with mortality rates of 95% repeatedly and still have a relatively large population. Pfly (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's weird how there were no amerindians north of Mexico, isn't it? And they knew that Texas, Florida, California, New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona and Nevada eventually would fell into U.S. hands, so they just stood south of El Paso to prove your point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.35.2 (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a terrible page

 * This is a terrible page. It needs much more information to cover the enormous expanse of Spanish colonization.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.172.155 (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps more a difficult article, with a wide scope of 'terrible' to 'amazing' events. Seemed a bit high on chopiness and low in npov (what a slippery slope of values that is...). So effort was to be respectfully bold--just another step on its path. Per above "needs more info": being big already, maybe that's for new articles taking off from it? "lets talk"---Look2See1 (talk) 09:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The whole page needs to be resstructured, I propose to focus on the movement of people and largely leave politics and economics for the article Spanish Empire. A Good start point would be to have the following sections:


 * 1) First immigrans
 * 2) Initial colonization currents
 * 3) Mexico
 * 4) Peru
 * 5) La Plata
 * 6) Late colonial immigrants
 * 7) Late areas of colonization
 * 8) California
 * 9) Florida
 * 10) Falklands Islands
 * 11) Southern Chile
 * 12) Patagonia
 * 13) Uruguay

Colonization or conquest?
This amazing article needs to be very, very careful>? The Spanish never really colonized the new world, but conquered it. Although much of Central and South America speaks Spanish, these people are not from Spain, but are ancestors of Native Americans. Very few Spanish came to the new world, and most of those who did came as governors and left a generation or two later. The idea of Spanish colonists coming to America to settle needs to be tempered in this article, if not completely removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.150.79 (talk)

This is not true at all. The Spanish conquest caused huges losses to the native population due to disease and enslavement. Because cite your sources for the statement that "very few Spanish" came to the New World. A very large percentage of Latin Americans, if not the majority are "Mestizos" mixed race people of Spanish and Native Indigenous origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.236.227 (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the guy above me. But there ARE people who have Spanish ancestry living in Central, South America, even Mexico. Hint hint they are called Criollos. Look it up. Oh and by the way I have parents who hail from Ecuador and they have Spanish Ancestry.

FYI, there are some good works on demographics for Spanish America. In general, individuals of Spanish descent represented between 10-20% of the colonial population, depending on region, urban/rural, etc. By the late 16th c. onward Indigenous people tended to account for 55-65% of the population, again varying over time and space. The remaining 25-35% would have been made up of African slaves and individuals of mixed African-indigenous-European descent. Slave ownership tended to decrease in most parts of Spanish America post-1640 (Cuba post-1770s being the major exception). Spaniards did immigrate, even by the late 16th c., many Spaniards and their families resident in the Americas claimed to be "antiguos pobladores." Spain did attempt some direct colonization after conquests. Puebla de los Angeles in Mexico was originally founded and intended to be a Spanish town settled by average Spanish labradores. What is true about the top statement is that many Spaniards never intended to STAY, nonetheless, the cost of travel and the difficulties involved led many Spanish settle permanently after arrival.

All of the below works discuss to some degree the demographics and racial profile of Spanish settlement in Mexico:

Aguirre Beltrán, Gonzalo. La Población Negra De México: Estudio Etnohistórico. Colección Fuentes Para La Historia Del Agrarismo En México. México: SRA-CEHAM, 1981.

Cope, R. Douglas. The Limits of Racial Domination: Plebeian Society in Colonial Mexico City, 1660-1720. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1994.

Martin, Cheryl English. Rural Society in Colonial Morelos. 1st ed. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1985.

Palmer, Colin A. Slaves of the White God: Blacks in Mexico, 1570-1650. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976.

Restall, Matthew. Beyond Black and Red: African-Native Relations in Colonial Latin America. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2005.

Seed, Patricia. "The Social Dimensions of Race: Mexico City 1753." Hispanic American Historical Review 62.4 (1982): 569-606. Airflorida 08:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear all! Definition of colonization at this same Wikipedia is: 1) Colonization, (or Colonisation in British English), occurs whenever any one or more species populate an area. 2) Human colonization is a narrower category than the related concept of colonialism, because whereas colonization refers of settler colonies, trading posts, and plantations, colonialism deals with this and the ruling of new territories' existing peoples.

In practice a significant list of countries in America were first conquered (subjugated), including Hispaniola, Cuba, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Peru, Colombia, Chile (partly), New Mexico. In some areas due to Spaniards being few, and indians many (Guatemala, Yucatan, Honduras) conquista was quite a lengthy process, lasting for decades. Conquista at this stage had preciously little to do with settler colonies, trading posts, and plantations. It usually involved raids for gold, slaves, and punishing the resisting indians. Some areas had conquistador expeditions first (Florida in Spanish broad meaning of the word, New Mexico, Amazonia), but no conquest or settlement for quite some time. Panama is another example, where original "settlements" of Darien and Acla were mere raiding posts, and were abandoned as soon as country was robbed of its gold.

More intensive Spanish settlement usually followed successful conquest, in case there were encomiendas with already conquered indians available in the area.

Less numerous areas were settled without initial full conquest (or conquest going hand in hand with settlement). Here I would think of Paraguay, Uruguay, maybe Argentina. Those areas were not good for conquest, and except Paraguay were settled lately.

Therefore I would suggest broadly splitting the Spanish history into 1) Exploration and conquest (usually inseparable, as after Columbus voyages exploration was usally done with the purpose of finding the lands worthy of conquest). 2) Colonial rule (not colonization) discussing here not only Spanish migration to America, but also their administration over conquered people, as well as any Afro-american colonization happening against the will of enslaved black people.

E.g. in Hispaniola settlement started in 1492, but did not prove to be efficient Isabella being abandoned in 1498. Conquest effectively started around 1495 and finished in 1503 with elimination of Xaragua and Higuey chiefdoms. Colonial rule lasted until Haiti overrun Spanish part of Hispaniola. In Peru exploration lasted till 1533, then there was conquest in 1533-1536 ending with the conquest of Collao and reduction of Inca Manco's holdings to Vilcabamba, followed by Civil Wars (between conquistadors) lasting untill Gasca's expedition. We can talk of Colonial Rule only after Gasca eliminated Pisarro's in Peru. Area of Vilcabamba had longer story of conquest due to small Inca state surviving there intill 1570s.

sincerely yours, yarco_tw@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.24.2.6 (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Albrech's image
Is there any reason Albrecht's Spanish colonization of the Americas image isn't being used in this article? The table of colors is quite large, but would make for a nice table. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 21:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This map is POV - it implies that the Portuguese Empire was part of the Spanish Empire. That was never the case, even if there was a period between 1580 and 1640 that both countries and empires had the same kings, in a Personal Union of the crowns in the period called of the Iberian Union. If maps of the Spanish Empire continue to push this POV, then maps of the Portuguese Empire will begin to push the opposite POV - that the Spanish Empire was part of the Portuguese one in those 60 years! The Ogre 14:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Come on, The Ogre, you know that is not true. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.55.201.56 (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this map represents an unrealistic view of what the Spanish Empire was, as do most maps. Today the maps showing Empires all seem to have very clear, colorful boundaries. Maps are extremely important for conceptualizing what is happening in the world in specific time periods, and most of them paint an unreal portrayal of what was going on. By just showing a map of portions of the continent being shaded a different color we get no background information. This is simply an easy way to show the Extent of an Empires legal authority and not explaining any of it. To really get a good Idea of what the Spanish Empire was like there would need to be a population chart as well as a trade routes and areas of influence. In an article on Portugal they had a map detailing the various trade routes as well as the influence that Portugal had on the areas that were within its Empire. I think that a map like this would be much better for this article. Voitik2 (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

spanisha colonization
how was the settelment establishe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.213.52 (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The Portuguese Empire
I think it's stupid to include an anachronistic map showing Portuguese possessions as being part of "pretense" Spanish overseas territories.... Spain never really controlled Brazil, even under Phillipine rule in portugal, Portuguese colonies were still under Portuguese rule. Besides most of the land that comes in pink wasn't even settled in the 16th/17th century it was much later that it was settled and conquered to Portugal and recognised by Spain in the Treaty of Madrid in 1750. --85.138.18.45 13:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * the most interesting of it, is not including the Guianas. eheh. --Pedro (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Issue with 'Cultural Impact' section?
Can anyone tell me if the last paragraph of this is supposed to be as it currently is? It seems like parts of it were chopped away, and some sort of juvenile attempt to be funny was dropped in the last sentence. This doesn't seem to have been recent, as I couldn't find a revision lacking the vandalism, so I think it's been overlooked up till now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.154.212 (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Sign Your Edits Please
Could we please start following Wikipedia policy and sign our posts on this talk page? All it takes is putting four tildes at the end of your post. Particularly with a controversial topic like this, editors need to take responsibility for their words, and that needs something more personal than just an IP address. I've seen quite a few talk pages, and have never seen one as bad at this page for unsigned posts. Thanks.Darkstar8799 (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Myth, propaganda, lies and reality.
The cruel Spanish were supposed to have anihilated the native peoples of the Americas. In fact, according to modern science, and according to anyone with a brain who knows Spain and the Americas, the population of the Americas ruled by the Spanish are still mainly of Native American stock:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.20108/abstract;jsessionid=38B9FCCC76D60A38690DA7339093E849.d02t01?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+on+27+October+from+10%3A00-12%3A00+BST+%2805%3A00-07%3A00+EDT%29+for+essential+maintenance

Iterestingly, Native Amerindians were indeed virtually anihilated in the North ruled 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)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.124.181.51 (talk)

There has been a revolution in archaeological, genetic and historical knowledge since the pioneering work done by Sherburne F. Cook nearly half a century ago. It would be nice if that hard won knowledge was referred to in this article in a matter of fact, disinterested, encyclopaedic manner.Provocateur (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC) PHAIL

Yeas, some Hispanic Americans are now beginning to discover that the majority of them actually descends from Amerindians or Native Americans, whatever you prefer. Where is the English-American equivalent. See: http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/09/30/latino.native.american/index.html?hpt=hp_bn2

From there I cut and pasted this:

But Maynard had long been taught that Taíno Indians, the indigenous people of Puerto Rico, were "gone, dead and buried" for centuries, decimated by Spaniards who arrived on the island in the 16th century.

and this:

Four years ago, Maynard heard about the work of Dr. Juan Carlos Martinez Cruzado, a geneticist from the University of Puerto Rico. In an island-wide genetic study, he found that at least 61.1% of those surveyed had mitochondrial DNA of indigenous origin.

Gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.163.240 (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, even the Native Americans in the US hae survived by the millions thnaks to Hispanic culture. Actually, Spanish New Mexicans, who thought themselves of almost exclusive Spanish ancestry, have 30-40 percent Native American ancestry on the maternal side. SEE this article that also found 1-5 per cent Jewish ancestry in this group/ Interesting. Again, where is the "Anglo" equivalent?

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/09/28/3089635/new-genetic-evidence-links-spanish-americans-of-southwest-to-jews

Juanito. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.203.72 (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You need to read a bit more of the historical sources and the demographic history of New Spain. Also you probably need to understand the difference between "existing as a people" and having some of your genes passed into Mestizo culture. And you should certainlky start reading something about the indigenous genocides perpetrated throughout Latin America just in the 19th and 20th century AFTER independence. Then you can come again with your white legend nonsense.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You are right, Maunus. It is interesting that in most Hispanic America the populations are either majority Amerindian or Mestizo. Only in the South, in Argentina or Uruguay, is the European population a majority, and interestingly all this happened when those countries got their independence from Spain, losing the protection of the Spanish empire. All Argentinians know the campaigns to destroy the Amerindian populations that took place in Argentina durinf the 19th century, with US advise, when it was independent form Spain. Juanito. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.236 (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Religion, Christianity, and evangelization
Considering that the entire enterprise of the Indies (the conqquering and colonization of the Americas) pivoted on the Papal's rights to Christianize, I am surprised that there is little to nothing about religion here. Perhaps others would be interested in expanding it in this area. Caballero/Historiador (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Spanish colonization of the Americas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120302041407/http://www.centrelink.org/KearnsDNA.html to http://www.centrelink.org/KearnsDNA.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

1832?
The year 1832 is only mentioned in this unsourced sentence  ... during the colonial period (1492–1832). Except for Puerto Rico and Cuba, we were done by 1824 in the Continent. Dunno what to do... Yama Plos  talk  18:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Improvement of article
Right now the article has low WP classification in various categories. I would like to see it rise as more and better information is added to it. I moved a big chunk of information ((36,813) in September 2019 on the structure of governance from the article Spanish Empire. I'd like to see sections on economy, society, religion, culture and other topics to be included.  I plan to devote time working on this article to improve it. I hope other Wikipedians can too. Amuseclio (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Amuseclio

Unexplained name change
Why the name change? We have European colonization of the Americas, Portuguese colonization of the Americas, German colonization of the Americas, Dutch colonization of the Americas, British colonization of the Americas, Danish colonization of the Americas, Couronian colonization of the Americas, French colonization of the Americas, Russian colonization of the Americas etc. etc., why do the Spanish get a different name? Tisquesusa (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the standard way to refer to this geographical region and historical period in the historiography. The cognate article is Colonial Brazil. I can understand a desire for uniformity for naming, but for Spanish colonization in early Latin America, colonial Spanish America is the most succinct and well-recognized way of naming it. I taught the history of Spanish America for many years, and the course title was this.  Amuseclio (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Amuseclio
 * I recognize your expertise in this, but:

It looks awkward, the way the article is named now. But I think others have their ideas about this too Tisquesusa (talk) 00:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) the uniformity in naming is for a reason, it describes which nation colonized the Americas, it doesn't make sense the Spanish get an exceptional title
 * 2) the article describes the history of the colonization (as the original title clearly describes), not as much the geographical area ("America")
 * 3) the title of a course in a university has little value for an article on Wikipedia, especially if other articles along the same lines have already an established naming. What if another lecturer comes around who teaches a course "Spanish colonial history of the Americas" and another one who taught a course named "Colonization by the Spanish in the Americas", who gets his/her course title as Wikipedia article name?
 * 4) in the general understanding of international, but mainly United States-based readers, "America" refers to just the United States thereof. The Americas (as the original title and the other articles) refers to both continents and is thus much clearer and more correct.
 * 5) what to do with places like California, Florida, Klein-Venedig, etc.? The first two would fall under "British Colonial America", even though they were colonized first by the Spanish, the latter is part of the German colonization of the Americas, but would fall under "Colonial Spanish America" as it is Venezuela...
 * 6) we also have indigenous peoples of the Americas, not "Indigenous America" as article name
 * 7) in my experience even if you want to name it this way it would be "Spanish colonial", not "Colonial Spanish". See also Spanish colonial architecture (the article name), not Colonial Spanish architecture (the redirect)
 * Against new name I agree with the reasoning laid out by Tisquesusa, the article should revert to its previous name. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Further discussion of article title I understand that there is some uniformity in WP naming, but I again point to Colonial Brazil as the cognate article for Iberian colonization in the Americas. Some historians avoid the word "colonial" using for the "early period" for it -- see James Lockhart and Stuart B. Schwartz, Early Latin America (1982) and Ida Altman et al, The Early History of Greater Mexico (1993). But other historians, including William B. Taylor,Ann Twinam, and many others do use the term colonial Spanish America. Areas of the current U.S. that Spain claimed are called by many historians the "Spanish borderlands". Places contiguous to New Spain can also be subsumed under the term "early Greater Mexico." The WP article Historiography of Colonial Spanish America has many other works that can be consulted for naming. As a US American who has pursued scholarship on Spain and the Americas and lived in English and French Canada for many years, as well as Mexico, I get frustrated by the US appropriation of the terms "America" and "American." When I was teaching, I pushed back against my U.S. history colleagues' use of "America" and "American" in discourse and in course titles. In editing WP, where I encounter the terms I edit them as some form of U.S. where it makes sense.  I find the frequently used term in Spanish norteamericano/a is from a Canadian perspective baffling, since it is not referring to Toronto or Montreal, but to the colossus of the south. Estadunidense is a better substitute in my view. As for other naming, I am glad the WP article on indigenous peoples in the Americas does not have "Indian" in the title.  As a social historian of Mexico studying the history of indigenous peoples using documentation in their own languages, (what some call an ethnohistorian), I find the term "Indian" problematic.  Indio is the term the Spanish government used to lump a multiplicity of indigenous peoples into a single category. Whether the article under discussion is called "Colonial Spanish America" or something else, I really want the substance of the article itself to be improved, since its ranking is far below what it should be. Redirects of titles usually allow the interested reader to find what they are looking for. I am open to reverting to the original title if discussion of the title is distracting us from making the substance of this article better. Con mis mejores deseos. Amuseclio (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Amuseclio

This article is unsourced or poorly sourced xenophobic garbage
Need to work on it seriously because its literally a joke. As a point of comparison, I would point to British colonization of the Americas. Two thirds of this Lead of this article discusses "genocide". Its ludicrous. --95.122.136.229 (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Please wait for consensus on the talk page before making large-scale edits to the page. --Hobomok (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I do agree the article overall is not very well sourced and is heavy on the negative stereotypes. Certainly a detailed discussion on whether genocide was committed or not is probably not warranted in the introductory section. I suggest incorporating material from the Spanish lang version of the article which, as tends to be the case in topics relevant to the hispanosphere, is far more balanced and better referenced. There is an automatic tendency to assume the English language version of an article is the superior one, when this is not always the case. Php2000 (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I would argue that mass-deletion is not the way to go about "fixing" the article, which is the method ip is using, and has a history of using. I'd say, for example, that the previous section read:
 * "By contrast, the indigenous population plummeted by an estimated 80% in the first century and a half following Columbus's voyages, primarily through the spread of Afro-Eurasian diseases.[2] This has been argued to be the first large-scale act of genocide in the modern era.[3] One can question whether the huge drop in population be considered genocide (a deliberate consciousness effort to erase a group(s) of people from the earth), since no one at the time knew about the unseen agents which caused the death of millions. Unlike English-speaking countries, Racial mixing was a natural process in the Spanish empire."
 * While I could see why it might make sense to cut the final two sentences as they are overly detailed explanations of the methods of genocide used by Spain during colonization, I see no reason to cut "This has been argued to be the first large-scale act of genocide in the modern era.[3]" Especially when the source used is the fourth volume of The Oxford Encyclopedia of Human Rights, by scholar David P. Forsythe. The original reasoning for this, given by anonymous ip, is that the sources are "garbage," or that they're based in "Anglo-Saxon anti-hispanic bias and prejudice." Forsythe isn't the only scholar to argue this. There are, in fact, many, many, many scholars that argue this.Hobomok (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think the term "genocide" should be in the lead at all. It is controversial, dubious (imho) and inflammatory. It seems you want to cut the two sentences which cast doubt on the whole notion and leave those which support it? I think mentioning the population drop and that this was primarily due to disease is indeed enough - facts which are not disputed by any known RS as far as I'm aware. Rule of thumb: Focus on non-controversial consensus statements in the lead. The article can have a "genocide debate" section where all these statements and sources can be chucked in. Php2000 (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm fine with that solution for lack of a better one... 95.122.136.229 (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There are multiple reliable sources that argue disease was part of the genocide. Here are four examples: David Stannard, Jeffrey Ostler, Ben Kiernan, and Andrés Reséndez. All pretty respected historians (Ostler is an endowed chair, Kiernan is an endowed chair at Yale, and Reséndez's book won the Bancroft Prize). My suggestion is that the sentence "This has been argued to be the first large-scale act of genocide in the modern era.[3]" stay and the others be deleted because it comes from a reliable source and simply states that the argument exists, not that it is correct or incorrect, which seems to be the argument you're both making. If there's going to be a section dedicated to genocide in the article, this sentence in the lead should surely remain.Hobomok (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hobomok Thanks for your input and references, I think it deserves some thought and a proper response. You see that is precisely the problem. There are sources which do argue that it was a genocide and there are sources which argue that it wasn't. The moment we introduce a sourced statement into the lead arguing that it was - we are required to introduce those sourced statements with the other side of the argument. And that is when things get out of control. I don't think that 2/3 of the lead were dedicated to genocide due to "anti hispanic bias" as the IP editor claims but rather because it is a contentious topic with a tendency to expand if we touch on it.


 * Regarding your sources. Yes, I have read Resendez. He is a good and well respected historian. However, I'm quite sure that nowhere in his books does he say that the Spanish settlement of America as a whole was genocidal. He may have said something of the sort regarding the conquest of Hispaniola or even Cuba. But even there, he explicitly states that the Spanish Crown had no intention to commit genocide or even to enslave the natives.


 * But Resendez is Mexican and as all educated Mexicans know, the Spanish conquest of Mesoamerica was anything but genocidal. The aim was to replicate peninsular institutions in the New World and it was not dissimilar to the conquest of any European territory. It was carried out fundamentally by the native Tlaxcala and other allies and the Spanish largely intermarried into the native Aztec nobility upon conquest. A good dozen hospitals were built for the natives of the valley of Mexico within the first two decades of the conquest - one built with the will of Hernan Cortes himself. In addition, a university was built for local elites - the Colegio de Santa Cruz de Tlatelolco and the Nahuatl language was official in New Spain expanding its geographic reach in the colonial era. The Spanish Inquisition had no authority over the natives and was actually charged with protecting them from abuse by Spaniards. The Laws of the Indies were uniquely protective of indigenous communities - to the point that natives tended to side with royalist factions in the Latin American wars of independence. Most actual genocides such as the Selknam genocide were following independence. So yes its a complicated topic.


 * As for your two other sources. I have to say I didn't know them. Have they written anything about Latin America? It seems the Kiernan source is a rather generalist book about genocide (Rwanda, Darfur etc) and the other one is about Lakota and Blackfoot Indians in the northern United States. I think we should give priority to sources which are about Latin American history than sources which may or may not touch on the subject matter tangentially. Regardless, none of this should go on the lead. As you can see there is a lot you can say about the genocide debate - just keep it in the right place.--Php2000 (talk) 02:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your clarification Php2000, it will be useful for Genocide of indigenous peoples which is also in a similar situation. But, please, you think there is no Hispanophobia here? The entire article is borderline racist with endless unsourced or poorly sourced statements which are simply false. It's on the level of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion reducing the Spanish to genocidal maniacs with an unquenchable lust for gold and an entire civilization as a failed and corrupt enterprise which squandered their robbed wealth on pointless wars. It literally uses this language. Its pure White-Anglo American prejudice, supremacism and ignorance. Fortunately, I see this has come to the attention of JECE who has flagged the entire article for what it is. Meanwhile Hobomok, considering you are from the United States, a country where the only people with visible NA ancestry are Hispanic immigrants, I suggest you start with the article British colonization of the Americas which does not use the word genocide once as well as not mentioning the multiple genocides they committed in building White America. The entire article is about how great and industrious they were. Or give the article United States a shot - it only grudgingly mentions the California genocide in a single sentence deep at the bottom of the article. There is more about it written HERE even though it happened after the US-Mexican war of 1848. Using the Spanish or Mexicans as an emotional scapegoat for the genocides committed by ones own ancestors is no way of dealing with white guilt. If done on Wikipedia, it also spreads misinformation and bigotry. 95.122.136.229 (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Php2000 First of all, I just want to thank you for engaging in discussion on this page free of ad hominem attacks and accusations of racism, sincerely. I'm not trying to engage in debate about whether or not genocide took place, but rather point to the fact that many, many scholars argue that it did, and that disease played a main role. Reséndez argues that the conditions Native people were placed in during colonization, whether through slavery, removal, violence, etc. did indeed contribute to the spread of disease. The Kiernan text touches on Spanish colonization as an example of genocide, and Kiernan is a very well-respected expert on genocide. Finally, the Ostler article has a section on Spanish colonization of the Americas and disease, as he points out, Spanish colonization took place in both South America and what is today considered the United States, and makes a disease-as-tool-of-genocide argument similar to Reséndez. All of that said, all that I am pointing to on the page is the lead, wherein I believe "By contrast, the indigenous population plummeted by an estimated 80% in the first century and a half following Columbus's voyages, primarily through the spread of Afro-Eurasian diseases.[2] This has been argued to be the first large-scale act of genocide in the modern era." can stay, as it simply motions toward the fact that it "has been argued" that this colonization contributed in large part to genocide of Native peoples. This signposts in the lead that the discussion and description will take place in-depth further down the page. If necessary we can add to the source from David P. Forsythe with Reséndez, Ostler, and Kiernan.


 * Finally, anonymous ip, I am not currently editing the page on the U.S. or British colonization of the Americas. I have, however, edited pages related to these histories. I encourage you to check out The Last of the Mohicans, and you'll see that I'm not only worried about the violence of colonialism when Spain is involved. However, I have a feeling you already knew that based on my edits to previous pages concerning Pequot peoples. As with your previous attacks, I want to be clear that I'm not arguing about other points on this page that you're pointing to, but I'm simply having a discussion with Php2000 about the article's lead. Accusations of racism are, as usual, a leap, and further, I'm not entirely sure what mean by your comment that the U.S. is "a country where the only people with visible NA ancestry are Hispanic immigrants," but I'd just like to state that such colorism is unnecessary. Hobomok (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * IP:user, I agree that the personal attacks are uncalled for, as are some of the dramatic language regarding this and other articles. We are not dealing with a concerted propaganda campaign. There may be legitimate grievances but they are dealt with in a calm tone through consensus building not through this aggressive denunciation. It is counterproductive for your own position since it will be hard to take you seriously, even when you are right.


 * Hobomok Do not take this badly but I do suggest you read WP:STONEWALLING. I do see some of your arguments bordering on this.


 * First regarding your proposal: In the exact manner in which you define it, it is a very clear breach of Wikipedia MOS: "It has been argued that..." is a weasel word to drop the G-bomb which will immediately be tagged with "Weasel" and "By whom". Someone has claimed this. Yes. Who? On what basis? Does anyone agree? Does anyone disagree? Why? The purpose of such an attribution is evidently to imply that it is true or at least partly true. It won't go unanswered. It is inherently unstable.


 * As for the sources, I am not aware of any serious argument of "Disease as an instrument of genocide" regarding the Spanish empire. As is mentioned in the article - genocide is inherently intentional. Anyone who uses the term is either trying to be controversial or has not looked it up in the dictionary. I do know of the story of the Siege of Fort Pitt where Small Pox blankets were distributed by the British (not sure if that was even very successful), but the Spanish Crown dedicated considerable resources to both building hospitals for Indigenous Americans and attempting to find a cure for plagues, even establishing a Chair in Native Medicine in the 1500s. One cannot cause genocide through disease that one is actively trying to fight. And no one sane would argue that the purpose of urban planning was making people sick.


 * Resendez of course is aware of this and, as an expert in Latin American history, would never make such an argument (disease as instrument of genocide). In his book he argues that in the first 25 years of Spanish rule in Hispaniola (perhaps the most singularly brutal episode of the Spanish colonial era), disease cannot account for the population drop on that island and therefore the mistreatment and enslavement of Indians in that period must have been a major factor. To support this he further argues that the Spaniards did not really mention disease in this early period and that the population did not rebound as it should have had.


 * In my view, the only source supporting genocide which should be in this article is Stannard. Stannard wrote a book about American (all of the Americaa) colonial history and unequivocally considers it all genocide, with a particular emphasis on the Spanish. I will withhold my opinion about Stannard's book but it has been widely read in the US so he should be mentioned. I don't think a book about Lakota Indians in Wisconsin who weren't even under the Spaniards should be quoted as a reliable source here. There are dozens of Latin American sources which take precedence over this since we should actively countering systemic bias on the project. I would also like to see exactly what generalist sources such as Forsythe have to say about the topic of genocide in Spanish-American territories.


 * Finally, you do realize that if you drop the G-bomb someone will eventually also want to have a couple of sentences on the anti-Spanish black legend in the lead - something which will be very easy to source and will be impossible to avoid without Stonewalling tactics. Do we need that? There is so much to say about this period of history which is uncontroversial and is absent from the article. Php2000 (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Php2000 I apologize if it seems that I am stonewalling. I feel as if I am trying to meet you halfway here, and I apologize, but I cannot take anonymous ip seriously for the reasons that you outline. I also apologize, as I was linking to Ostler's book when I meant to link to this article. If you'd like the lead to be specific, I think it would be fair to write that "some scholars argue that Spanish colonization constituted a genocide," and link to Forsythe, Stannard, Resendez, Kiernan, and Ostler. I don't see that as vague or weaseling, I solely see it as a lead which motions toward discussions to be had later on down the page. The lead simply provides an overview of the article, and this talk page would serve as clear indication that we agreed not to include any other details in the lead, as they can be hashed out in the body. If we're going to remove long-standing content, such a discussion makes sense to me. Hobomok (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * No issue Hobomok. I propose we just give the issue a break for a couple of days and see what others have to say. I'm a bit busy currently. I agree there should ideally be some compromise solution but I am quite positive the vast majority of scholars specialized in Latin America positively disagree with the statement that Spanish colonization of America constituted genocide. You should realize the uncompromising nature of your sentence - its not that "genocidal events occurred" its that it "was" genocide - the entire thing - and you also seem to propose to eliminate that deaths were overwhelmingly due to Afro-Eurasian disease. I'm assuming good faith, so I'm sure you didn't realize but the "midway" solution you are proposing is actually far more extreme than the current version. I have to agree with one thing with the other editor in this discussion: Try introducing the equivalent phrase in the lead for British colonization of the Americas or Territorial evolution of the United States - that "some scholars think it was genocide" and see what happens. I suggest you do so as an experiment since it might put things in perspective for you. Php2000 (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I am all for taking time away for a few days, Php2000. I think that is a good idea as well.
 * However, just a note r/t the compromise I’ve suggested: As you’ve pointed out, Resendez makes clear that many of the deaths in question would be from violence and slavery, not only disease. Further, other authors would argue that assimilation and missionization contributed to what they have termed genocide, so it would not just be disease and the slavery/spectacular violence Resendez notes. In this case, I believe my suggested lead sentence makes sense. I'm simply suggesting what the sentence could be r/t genocidal colonialism. I'm not saying that's how it must be written; rather, I'm trying to say that the genocidal nature of such colonialism should be signposted in the lead as a discussion further down the page, especially since the lead is very long. A middle ground stating that it has been argued should remain in some context, followed by listing the four-five authors I've provided here, including the original author, Forsythe, whom anonymous ip initially deleted because it was a "garbage source" despite coming from a respected historian and Oxford University Press. A signal that this argument exists, is robust, and will be discussed more in-depth further into the article, as you have suggested previously, would be a compromise, I believe.
 * Finally, as I’ve stated previously here and on other pages, and provided evidence for scholarly argument as such, British colonization, US colonization, and US territorial expansion was genocidal in nature. Again, I have introduced this idea r/t settler colonialism in U.S. history on pages, per Patrick Wolfe. I am in no way saying that Spanish colonization is more/less brutal/genocidal, while of course the historical methodologies and outcomes/afterlives are different (North America is not currently South America for many reasons). See the Ostler and Kiernan books above for this argument, and other scholars such as Nick Estes, Daniel Wildcat, Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, or Kyle Powys Whyte, or previous edits I have done regarding the nature of North American settler colonialism. Editing the pages you'd like me to go and introduce this discussion into should happen in due time, but first of all, that would be an addition to the page rather than a deletion, and second of all I am also busy and cannot edit five pages at once. At any rate, we’re not actively editing US-based pages and this discussion doesn’t center around them, so they, and the editors there, are not relevant to this discussion and this is a false equivalency and ultimately off-topic. Hobomok (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2020
In paragraph five of the introduction, there is a typographical error. "Division" is mistyped in the sentence "...the Spanish American wars of independence resulted in the secession and subsequent divisoon of most Spanish territories in the Americas..." Melonman0 (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. EdJohnston (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

POV and Charges of Xenophobia
The two accounts that initiated discussion of Xenophobia (Php2000 and anonymous ip two sections above) have been outed as suspected socks of Azerti83, who is known for combative editing r/t charges of xenophobia on articles about Spanish Colonization. Is it possible now to remove the POV banner from the page as we did at Genocide of indigenous peoples for the same reasons? --Hobomok (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * In fact, I might argue that the section of the lead in question by those accounts, mention of genocide, be edited to remove weasel words added by Php2000 ("One can question..."), to instead read "By contrast, the indigenous population plummeted by an estimated 80% in the first century and a half following Columbus's voyages, primarily through the spread of Afro-Eurasian diseases, slavery, and forced conversion through missionization.[2] This has been argued to be the first large-scale act of genocide in the modern era.[3]" Sources added would be Clifford Trafzer's Exterminate Them: Written Accounts of the Murder, Rape, and Enslavement of Native Americans During the California Gold Rush, Andres Resendez' The Other Slavery: The Uncovered Story of Indian Enslavement in America, Deborah A. Miranda's Bad Indians: A Tribal Memoir, and Jeff Ostler's "Genocide and American Indian History." This clarifies current scholarly research on the topic and removes POV weasel-wording. --Hobomok (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The global academic consensus is that the demographic collapse in North and South American continents was overwhelmingly due to the introduction of Afro-Eurasian diseases, particularly smallpox but also the Cocoliztli epidemics in Mexico which was a hemorrhagic fever of unknown origin which may have wiped out up to 80% of the population of this densely populated area.


 * This is why this assertion has remained stable on this article for the past three years. Your decision to unilaterally change it is based on dubious sources which only touch on the topic tangentially and do not explicitly argue otherwise, at least regarding the Americas as a whole. Arguing that "missionization" was a major cause of the demographic collapse of the Spanish empire in the Americas is not supported by any credible academic source. The concept of "missionization" is completely unknown in Latin America and largely restricted to California and Texas in the United States. In fact, most Missions in present-day Texas were built at the behest of Native Americans in order to protect them from Comanche raids. One of these was the Mission Santa Cruz de San Sabá, you may have heard of. Frijolesconqueso (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I've already discussed the veracity of these sources above with two other editors (one of which turned out to be a sock puppet, and the other was banned for 48 hours and hasn't returned... At least not under the same anonymous ip address they were using). I'll restate that each person I've cited is a respected academic and Reséndez's book won the Bancroft. None of these sources are "extremely weak," as you stated in your reversion. Furthermore, that section of the lead doesn't discuss collapse of the Spanish empire in the Americas as you state here, but collapse of the Americas' Indigenous population. There are multiple studies that argue demographic collapse was due to disease in addition to and spurred on by other colonial acts, whether they be spectacular violence or insidious violence through numerous colonial policies. This has been argued in relation to Spanish colonization and colonization of the Americas in general, both in the sources provided and numerous others. The argument you present, both here and in your edit summaries sure does sound a lot like the accounts above.
 * On a related note, you and I have already had a similar discussion over at the Genocide of indigenous peoples Talk Page after you went there and made edits to that article r/t the Trafzer book, stating that it didn't say what it does, which is similar to what you're doing here with multiple sources. It should be said that both of the accounts I reference above also wanted the Trafzer book removed from that page, as evidenced on the talk page there. It seems very strange to me that on your third day on Wikipedia you managed to find that page and reintroduce a source directly related to the arguments those accounts made a few days prior, which multiple editors deleted previously.
 * In relation to the changes made here and using the talk page to make them, I brought the changes discussed above over to this talk page to begin with, and no one objected, so I made the changes. I made them because the sock puppet and contentious editor above were making charges of Xenophobia on the page, which was reflected under the original subject heading here that you deleted and I've restored. To combat those charges of xenophobia I added more peer-reviewed academic sources from respected scholars, which do support what has been written, as I've showed above (the conditions that made collapse from disease possible are in large part due to forced labor and resource extraction in Central and South America, and the deplorable conditions at missions in North America put in effect by Spanish colonization). Adding discussion of compounding causes of such destruction, per the sources I've cited (which again, are not dubious in any way as they are peer reviewed and two of the books have won major academic awards) is simply strengthening sources on Wikipedia. It does not matter if the page has read the same for any amount of time. I included specific academic sources for Spanish colonization across the Americas, in South, Central, and North America and I asked about the changes on this Talk Page. If you take umbrage with those changes, then the first thing to do is come and discuss them here, as you ask me to do, not take it upon yourself to change the page's lead. By your logic, you shouldn't change any part of the lead in the way you have because it has been stable for quite sometime. Wikipedia changes over time as more sources are brought in. That is what has happened here. In the interest of not edit-warring, I will not change back what you've written at this moment, but again, if you're going to make those changes, it's best to bring them to the talk page first as I did originally.Hobomok (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Resendez does not claim that forced conversions were a main cause of the demographic collapse in the Spanish Empire in America. If he did he would be a polemist not a historian. He argues slavery and mistreatment may have played a larger role in the demographic collapse in the Caribbean island of Hispaniola during the conquest of that island. Other scholars argue otherwise, but it doesn't matter.
 * Considering that in the entire Americas an estimated to 2 - 5 million Native Americans were enslaved by Europeans (including over 500,000 to the north of the Spanish empire according to your own source), considering slavery was abolished in Spanish territories within two decades of the Spanish conquest of Mexico, it is virtually impossible that it played a major role in the demographic collapse of continental North and South America for which population estimates range from 50 and 100 million. This is why no credible source states this. No source. Not your sources and no particularly no credible source which directly tackles the subject of the American continent's demographic collapse following/during conquest and settlement.
 * As you might or might not know, forced conversions were not the norm in the colonial period of Latin America and no credible source could claim that such hypothetical conversions would lead to demographic collapse. At the most it could argued that the process of urbanization may have accelerated the spread of such diseases, although this relies on a fair amount of speculation. The Jesuit missions which functioned as socialist societies and forbade entry to Spaniards would certainly have had the opposite effect.
 * On a separate note you may notice I am disengaging with your frantic attempts to have me banned from Wikipedia, since they are a waste of our time and futile in the long-run. False or unverified information based on misconstrued sources will eventually disappear or be corrected, whether I'm here or not and no matter how ardently any specific editor aims to push a point of view. Wikipedia is, after all, a collective effort. I suggest you do not dedicate so much of your time to replacing a statement which is so indisputable it has remained stable for three years for one which is simply false yet closer to your personal world view. It is a humble request. Research, read up on the topic, challenge your own views and accept that there are certain periods of history which have more nuance than a 45 minute documentary on the History Channel. Think that Wikipedia is an educational resource for hundreds of millions of users who expect it to accurately reflect all of the most authoritative sources on specific topics. Don't look for obscure sources to support your own views as you have been doing but rather find the best sources to see how they can be best be reflected on Wikipedia. This way we will have a great free online encyclopedia we all can trust. For you it will also be a fulfilling experience where you learn new things. --Frijolesconqueso (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Number one, please stop editing the talk page structure so that it is clear where and how these discussions originated. Number two, as I stated in an above section of the talk page, Resendez discusses slavery and the conditions of slavery as creating conditions necessary for such disease to spread. He does not discuss forced conversions and missions, but the other books do. As I've stated previously in my first reply to you, I didn't want to have to make these arguments r/t Resendez or the veracity and repute of the sources I've provided here again, as I've previously done this on this talk page with Php2000 and 95.122.136.229.


 * Furthermore, the other sources that I've provided, and the one that was provided on the Genocide of indigenous peoples page that you tried to have removed previously, Clifford Trafzer's book, goes in-depth on violence of extractivism and forced conversions in North America, and the deplorable conditions in missions, and the Miranda book that's also cited goes in-depth on the question of violence in cases of forced conversions at California missions. Ostler also touches on the topic of genocide and the many causes beyond and related to disease in the paper provided. Stannard goes in-depth on the question of genocide and the myriad policies and events that would structure it (beyond and related to disease). These are not the only sources that touch on these topics. As I've stated above, each of these scholars/writers is well-known and received, so to say that these are obscure sources or this is History Channel doc. level research is... unfounded, but again, the manner in which you seek to call into question and belittle respected scholarship smacks of the previous editors who so dogmatically wanted these sources and their claims removed from multiple pages. The Miranda book won multiple awards, Resendez' work won the Bancroft, Trafzer's work continues to be cited in contemporary (award winning) work on settler colonialism and colonialism, Ostler is an endowed chair at his University, and Stannard's book, despite being a bit dated (1992), was and continues to be well-received and comes from a major university press.Hobomok (talk) 02:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Frijolesconqueso Please stop edit-warring about Spanish policies contributing to Indigenous death from disease, and the scholarly sources presented which argue for a more nuanced view of such disease and its contributing colonial factors, if you're not going to discuss them on the talk page. Adding Spanish policy that would contribute to Indigenous death and disease spread is not a "counterfactual." Your discussion of the veracity and repute of the sources and scholars cited in various sections does not hold up at all, especially when you have provided sources on other pages by, of all people, Jared Diamond, whose work is determinist and erases colonial violence in North and South America. Numerous scholars have argued against the pop-determinist-tropes Diamond presents. Please stop. --Hobomok (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

POV/Charges of Xenophobia/Indigenous Genocide
I can only assume that the editor causing trouble above will return as a different sock account(s) in the near future to argue against well-known scholarship. I'm putting this section here to call for discussion on the talk page before anyone makes sweeping edits to any section of the lead, especially as it reads in relation to Indigenous slavery, forced conversions, etc. This way there's precedent to have discussion r/t that section before sweeping deletions are made and an edit war ensues. I'd also like to ask that we insist on Good Faith discussion here as opposed to misrepresenting what the cited authors say, or full-on attacking the authors' credentials as has been done in the sections above. I don't have the time anymore to continually defend respected scholars.--Hobomok (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You seem to have plenty of time to impose your "peculiar" views which are diametrically opposed to scholarly consensus with fabricated attributions. Anyways, my contribution to this discussion is from the article in es: Wikipedia which directly tackles this topic. No lack of proper sources or direct quotes. es:Catástrofe demográfica en América tras la llegada de los europeos Should settle the matter. At least I hope. Aquisigo2 (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Where the hell do Hispanics get the preposterous idea that Spain controlled all of the United States? Always excessively stretching the truth. They still shade in the Philippines as Spanish speaking on most world maps (Spanish is dead there). And hispanics also shade in half of Morocco as Spanish speaking. That is is simply bullshit!The only languages that are of any importance there are : Arabic and French. In the Philippines it is: Tagalog and English.

Hispanics are intent on giving an impression (albeit false) that Spanish os spoken in more places in the world where it is not! The only current and truly world languages are: English, French and Portuguese, because these three languages are spoken OFFICIALLY on at least 5 continents. Conversely, Spanish is a strong REGIONAL language, as it is 98% officially spoken in Central and South America. And then there is Spain and teeny-weeny Equatorial Guinea. But now they want the whole world to know that Spanish is a quasi-official language of the USA just because there are millions of Spanish speakers living there. The would love nothing better than for Spanish to be made a co-official language there. Not going to happen! The Germans tried that 100 years ago, but eventually melded into the English American mainstream. The young generation already prefer English over Spanish. After the Spanish only speaking generation dies, Spanish will be just another optional school subject as it is now anyway...You don't see other very numerous immigrant groups in the USA acting entitled the way the American Hispanics do. They have this obsessive need to be superior to everyone else. Their bubble is going to be burst soon. Just watch! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:1221:9B00:2C13:9445:5E49:FE71 (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Here we go again. --Hobomok (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Causas de la reducción demográfica
Las causas que explican el drástico descenso demográfico en América han sido siempre causa de polémica. Desde ámbitos generalmente ajenos a la historiografía, políticos, periodistas y organizaciones políticas actuales, así como autores han consignado que la catástrofe demográfica fue fruto de campañas de exterminio sistemático, por lo que se trataría de un genocidio. Otros historiadores, en la misma línea, han señalado que serían las condiciones brutales de la sociedad colonial, como la "Encomienda", las que serían las responsables de la catástrofe demográfica, señalando que estas condiciones de explotación, no accidentales, constituirían un genocidio. Los defensores de la hipótesis del exterminio sistemático, en general, achacan la debacle demográfica a una acción intencionada de los europeos.

En general, ningún historiador niega que las condiciones de servidumbre y explotación a que fue sometida la población indígena, fue causa de muertes, pero algunos sostienen que ningún esfuerzo humano podría reducir de un 60 a un 95 de población indígena bajo un sistemático que no existió y a lo largo de un siglo. Pero existe un gran consenso entre historiadores, demógrafos y ecólogos que apuntan a la introducción de enfermedades desconocidas por los indígenas, y para las que carecían de defensas, como la causa fundamental de la debacle demográfica, estimando entre un 75 y un 95% de disminución de población achacable a las enfermedades epidémicas debido a un proceso de unificación micróbica del mundo originado en occidente (Europa, Asia y África) debido a las dinámicas comerciales y que afectaron acumulativa y sucesivamente a indígenas de todas las edades.

Epidemias como factor cuantitativo más importante
Desde la década de 1980, existe un amplio consenso entre los investigadores sobre la influencia de las epidemias introducidas por los europeos en el rápido declinar de la población nativa americana. Las cifras manejadas van desde un 30 a un 95% de la población que existía antes de la llegada de los europeos. Pocos historiadores niegan el carácter brutal de la conquista y la sociedad colonial, que contribuyeron a empeorar y agravar la situación, aunque algunos sí lo hacen, como Ricardo Levene, entre otros.

La demógrafa mexicana Elsa Malvido estableció que en México, entre 1518 y 1540 se produjeron tres grandes epidemias de viruela (la primera quizás también incluyó sarampión) que aniquilaron en forma inmediata a la población, causando la mortalidad del 80%.

El historiador hispanista de origen británico Henry Kamen analiza, en su obra Imperio, la debacle demográfica de la América Española. Así, consigna que la crueldad de los españoles fue indudable, señalando también que a los propios españoles el exterminio de los nativos no les convenía: "La crueldad que emplearon los españoles es incontrovertible. Fue despiadada, brutal y el régimen colonial jamás llegó a tenerla bajo control. Los españoles, por supuesto, no tenían interés alguno en destruir a los nativos; hacerlo, evidentemente, habría socavado su institución básica, la encomienda."

Sin embargo, afirma también, citando la obra de David Noble Cook ''[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/909936.Born_to_Die Born to Die. Disease and New World Conquest, 1492-1650]'', que tal crueldad no pudo ser la causa de la catástrofe demográfica que asoló la población nativa, dada la escasez de población europea: "Y sin embargo, la crueldad infligida a los habitantes del Nuevo Mundo fue responsable de sólo una pequeña parte del desastre subsiguiente. Nunca hubo suficientes españoles en América para matar al enorme número de nativos que perecieron. Sin ninguna duda, el motivo principal del catastrófico descenso en la población de las Américas fueron las enfermedades infecciosas llevadas por los europeos. Los nativos del mundo atlántico no se libraron de enfermedades ni de epidemias. Y la invasión europea acarreó nuevas y crueles formas de morir. Las bacterias que portaban los españoles sacudieron la región caribeña tan pronto como Colón desembarcó y alcanzaron el continente incluso antes que Cortés. La primera gran epidemia (de viruela) se produjo en La Española, a finales de 1518, alcanzó México en 1520 y, al parecer, se extendió por América del Norte y probablemente también por el imperio incaico. [...] El impacto directo de las enfermedades fue devastador y así lo registraron los indios en sus crónicas. Hubo otras causas de mortandad masiva, pero todas fueron indirectas o con efectos a largo plazo.

[...]La llegada del europeo, aparte de las brutalidades que pudiera cometer más tarde, parece haber tenido únicamente un pequeño papel en la epopeya de un desastre de proporciones cósmicas. [...] El número total de personas afectadas nunca podrá calcularse con fiabilidad, pero no es exagerado sugerir que, entre los pueblos indígenas del Nuevo Mundo, más de un noventa por ciento de las muertes fueron causadas por enfermedades contagiosas más que por crueldad."

El ecólogo Jared Diamond, en su obra Armas, gérmenes y acero, ganadora de un premio Pulitzer y varios premios al mejor libro científico (como el Royal Society Prize for Science Books), estima el impacto de las enfermedades introducidas por los europeos en un 95% de la población: "La viruela, el sarampión, la gripe, el tifus, la peste bubónica y otras enfermedades infecciosas endémicas en Europa tuvieron un papel decisivo en las conquistas europeas, al diezmar a muchos pueblos en otros continentes. Por ejemplo, una epidemia de de viruela devastó a los aztecas tras el fracaso del primer ataque español en 1520 y mató a Cuitláhuac, el emperador azteca que sucedió brevemente a Moctezuma. A lo largo de América, las enfermedades introducidas por los europeos se extendieron de tribu a tribu mucho antes de la llegada de los propios europeos, matando a un porcentaje estimado del 95% de la población nativa americana existente a la llegada de Colón."

Concuerda con el historiador Alfred Crosby quien en su libro "Imperialismo ecológico" plantea como la ecología "europea" consistente en animales, malas hierbas y vegetales implantados, pero sobre todo las infecciones y enfermedades prosperaron en América facilitando el triunfo de los europeos:

"La viruela cruzó por primera vez (...) a finales de 1518 o comienzo del 1519, y durante los cuatro siglos siguientes desempeñaría un papel tan esencial en el avance del imperialismo blanco en ultramar como la pólvora. Quizás un papel más importante, porque los indígenas hicieron que los mosquetes y después los rifles, se volvieran contra los intrusos, pero la viruela luchó muy raramente del lado de los indígenas. Normalmente los intrusos eran inmunes a ella así como a otras enfermedades infantiles del Viejo Mundo, la mayoría de las cuales eran nuevas a otro lado de los océanos"

El investigador Jorge Gelman, opinando sobre el debate del genocidio y la catástrofe demográfica en la Conquista de América, sostuvo: "No estoy seguro que el término (genocidio) sea el más adecuado, aunque no hay ninguna duda de la magnitud de la mortandad entre los pueblos indígenas americanos, que siguieron a la invasión y conquista europea. Las razones son muy variadas: seguramente desde el punto de vista cuantitativo lo peor fueron las enfermedades, pero estuvieron potenciadas por la explotación, las hambrunas, la separación de las familias por los sistemas de trabajo forzado."

Respecto al mismo debate, y en línea con Henry Kamen, la historiadora argentina María Sáenz Quesada niega las imputaciones de exterminio sistemático argumentando que los europeos no podían eliminar a su mano de obra: "Yo no diría que hubo asesinatos masivos, diría que hubo luchas. Los aztecas y Cortés por ejemplo lucharon. Masacres deliberadas para matar indígenas no hubo, por la simple razón de que eran la fuerza de trabajo que los españoles iban a usar."

Robert McCaa introduce también las devastaciones ecológicas como factor agravante de la catástrofe demográfica: "El rol de las enfermedades no puede ser entendido sin tener en cuenta el cruel tratamiento a que se sometió a la masa de la población nativa (migración forzada, esclavitud, demandas laborales abusivas, y tributos exorbitantes) y la devastación ecológica que acompañó la colonización española."

Otros investigadores, como Ward Churchill, profesor de ética de la Universidad de Colorado en Boulder y activista étnico, sostiene que si bien las enfermedades fueron la causa directa que más incidió en la catástrofe demográfica los europeos agudizaron intencionalmente su efecto: "¿Se echaron para atrás aterrados, diciéndose «un momento, hemos de poner coto a todo este proceso, o al menos ralentizarlo en la medida de lo posible, hasta que podamos afrontar una manera de impedir que se propaguen sus efectos?» Ni mucho menos. Su respuesta, en la totalidad del continente, consistió en acelerar la velocidad de propagación extendiéndola en la medida de lo humanamente posible."

Uno de los inconvenientes que se han señalado a la teoría de las epidemias como causa de la catástrofe demográfica, es que no se conoce ninguna pandemia que haya eliminado prácticamente la totalidad de la población de un continente, «debido a que, por norma, los virus, microbios y parásitos no acaban con la mayoría de sus víctimas». "Ni siquiera la Peste Negra, símbolo de la enfermedad virulenta, fue tan mortífera como se sostiene fueron estas epidemias. La primera incursión en Europa de la Peste Negra, entre 1347 y 1351, constituyó la clásica epidemia en territorio virgen. La mutación acababa de crear la variante pulmonar del bacilo conocido como yersinia pestis. Pero es que ni siquiera en aquella ocasión la enfermedad acabó con más de un tercio de sus víctimas."

Estimación del porcentaje de indígenas muertos según la peste:

Tabla con las principales pestes ocurridas con el lugar donde pasaron:

Otros factores añadidos fueron los desplazamientos forzados de población por las políticas de reducción (pueblos de indios, aldeas) y por desplazamientos forzados de fuerza de trabajo hacia entornos distintos, así como lo que el historiador Nicolás Sánchez llamó "desgana vital", es decir, la decepción psicológica por la conquista y la desesperanza causada por el derrumbamiento del mundo indígena, así como la destrucción de economías de susbistencia en algunas sociedades.

Se debe mencionar que las enfermedades también provocaron una mortalidad indirecta debido a que causaban en varios casos abortos e infertilidad a quienes las sufrían o habían sufrido. Por ejemplo, una mujer enferma de sarampión tenía altas posibilidades de parir hijos mal formados o enfermos. También es muy posible que entre los varones las paperas y la viruela causaran infertilidad.

Hay que mencionar también que las pestes se propagaron muy rápido, llegaban antes que los ejércitos españoles, así por ejemplo una peste de viruela afectó al Imperio inca en 1524 varios años antes de la llegada de Francisco Pizarro y que las zonas costeras de Colombia se vieron afectadas desde el año 1500, veinte años antes del establecimiento de asentamientos permanentes europeos.