Talk:Spanish colonization of the Americas/Archive 2

Sections
Obviously a disconnect as one jumps from the discovery of America to an obscure, if important battle on the Great Plains, but eventually needs to be all filled in. Filled in completely this promises to be a monster of an article and eventually will need to be divided into sections. For example a Caribbean section, A Mexico and North American Section, perhaps including Florida, etc. User:Fredbauder

Since I happen to be working with two books, one on the Rio Grande and one on the Yucatan I'll see if I can put a summary here and detailed info into New Mexico, Texas and Yucatan articles and see how it goes. User:Fredbauder

Removal of paragraph
I removed this paragraph:

Nowadays, the descendants of the native Americans constitute the base of the population of the countries that long ago comprised of the Spanish Empire in America, excepting Argentina, Uruguay and the Caribbean ones. Two of the Amerindian languages, Quechua and the Guarani have reached rank of co-officials in Latin American countries. There was Latin American President from Indian origen, as Benito Júarez, in Mexico or Alejandro Toledo, in Peru.

It doesn't speak to the subject of the article. The first sentence could be usable but it would be better to list the countries where it is true, since the article does not yet mention all the countries which were once part of the Spanish empire. Rmhermen 18:49 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

Further removals
Removed:
 * They did these things to 'civilize' the Amerindians. The Amerindians used quipu and adored many gods.  The Crown felt that without a phonetic writing system, set religion, and steady economy, the Amerindians were mere savages.  They imposed Catholic religion on the Amerindians to begin 'civilized living'.

It is redundant and I am not certain it is exact.
 * Their idols were ruined by inspectors and their goods were traded to Europe, for the Amerindian signature design of geometrical designs were much different from the realistic figurative art of European countries.

I'd remove this as well -- Error 02:17, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Encomiendas
Encomiendas were not tracts of land as the article suggests. They were instead grants of forced native labor, which could be used on different tracts of land and for other purposes in constructing the colonial insfrastructure. Unless I overlooked this, there is no mention of Hispanicized blacks (free and enslaved) who took part in all phases of "Spanish" colonization of the Americas, who were part of the Spanish world well before 1530 (well before the reconquest in fact)---this is not new information among scholars of colonial Latin American history. Finally, the sources listed are sparse and outdated. The article is a good start, but still needs much, much more work. Kemet 28 March 2006

In the opening sentence it states that the expansion was accomplished by the Spanish which simplifies events as the armies rising up against indigenous rulers of the day such as the Aztecs consisted primarily of indigenous allies so much so that in the initial stages it resembled a civil war. In the subsequent years it was mixed raced Westernized mestizos, who always outnumbered those of pure European ancestry and survived in greater numbers compared to the purely indigenous since they were less susceptible to introduced diseases from Europe, Asia and Africa, that over the years gradually by force or voluntarily culturally absorbed the remaining indigenous populations, so in essence the expansion really was collaborative effort not just restricted to one group.

Needs finishing touches, Citations
I cleaned up the page a bit. Broke a line after the Spanish Colonization table, and switched the European Colonization article to a link at the See Also section. It's a lot cleaner now but it seems to be missing something... Maybe another picture, or an into paragraph? -Rich

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2021
Change from: " In Peru, silver was found in a single silver mountain, the Cerro Rico de Potosí, still producing silver in the 21st century. Potosí (founded 1545) was in the zone of dense indigenous settlement, so that labor could be mobilized on traditional patterns to extract the ore."

Change to: " In Bolivia, silver was found in a single silver mountain, the Cerro Rico de Potosí, still producing silver in the 21st century. Potosí (founded 1545) was in the zone of dense indigenous settlement, so that labor could be mobilized on traditional patterns to extract the ore."

In this page, Nueva España is labeled Mexico, this means that the information is referencing today's names of these countries. The Cerro Rico de Potosi is in Bolivia, not Peru. This is obvious by looking at the map today. CBBomboasy (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * At the time, it was Peru, or rather the Viceroyalty of Peru. Perhaps we could settle with something like "In Peru (now Bolivia)..."? It would be better to steer readers away from the notion that it was Bolivia at the time of discovery, in any case. ASUKITE  02:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. No change required as of yet. How best to clarify this without being needlessly verbose is another issue; although it appears clear from context that the reference is made to the contemporary divisions (as it should be) and not the modern nations RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  16:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2021
I noticed a typo in the section "Economy." In the last paragraph of this section, there is a sentence that reads: "Also cochineal is technically an animal product, the insects were placed on cacti and harvested by the hands of indigenous laborers." I think the first word, "also", should be changed to "although". 2604:CA00:1EA:C7ED:0:0:1062:150F (talk) 12:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I took the whole sentence out--it's a bit redundant since agriculture includes animal products. Also added a reference. Glendoremus (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

How to go to North America in the game
How to go to North America in the game 50.27.55.173 (talk) 04:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Gerard Depardieu
change ((Gerard Depardieu)) to ((Gérard Depardieu)) 2601:541:4580:8500:6DCF:45B:11CD:F385 (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cannolis (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Needs a United States section on Imperial expansion
There's little to no mention of spanish territories in modern day US except for links to other articles on specific city foundations or dominions, even when the country was first colonized by the spanish. 181.164.171.39 (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a glaring omission. natemup (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed., would you be able to get something together, at least a start that can be expanded? I'm too busy working on other stuff.;-) Carlstak (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind helping out. Would a singular subheading like "United States" be better than splitting up, lets say, "Texas" and "Florida"? Amscheip (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "United States" seems too general to me. Thinking out loud, "Spanish borderlands colonies" might be serviceable. It included the eastern and western borderlands: "Florida, the northern Gulf Coast, Spanish Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, present-day Arizona, and California, along with the northern provinces of Mexico that bordered them". That would be much more descriptive, in my opinion. "Texas" and "Florida" could be lower-level subheadings. Carlstak (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Changed it to "United States", since all the other sections refer to the modern country names. natemup (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Spain in the Age of Discovery
and similar redirects now point here, which is obviously ludicrously misguided. The Americas were essential to Spanish wealth and power but in practice a huge chunk of that was leveraged into Asian trade. There's also a need for an overview of their exploration generally, especially so that it points out things other than Columbus that we can assume any reader able to read the page already knows about. Off the top of my head, there's this page, the Pacific Northwest if that needs to be distinct for some reason, the African coast (both replicating hidden Portuguese info and finding additional locations they had passed over) and interior, and the Pacific (including all the various phantom islands they made up or misrepresented in public). They may have gotten up to something in the Indian Ocean and around Australia as well.

The fact I don't know and can't easily find out points toward the problem. As is, there's no decent page, e.g., to point history of Spanish exploration towards, despite that being far more important for most readers than history of Spanish wine or photojournalism. There should be a landing page somewhere on Wikipedia (especially at this late date) for coverage of Spanish exploration around the world and/or the main initial sailors involved. I assume there originally was one and it got merged incorrectly at some point, but we still need it rebuilt at least into a nexus for incoming names to provide a list of links pointing to the full range of articles on the topic. — Llywelyn II   11:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

"America" (name from mapping)
It is not true that indigenous civilization know the whole continent via trade and shipping routes. But it is well know that the name America was from European mapping.--Vicentemovil (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Please see Dunbar-Ortiz, An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States, Chapter One: "Follow the Corn." I'm also not completely sure if the text you're adding reflects what you're saying here. Can you explain what exactly you want the page to say about European mapping? Even mapping from colonization during the period in question did not connect the whole of the Americas. Cartographic connection of the entire American continent by colonists did not happen for a very long time. For example, in the context of Spanish colonization, Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca's narrative shows clearly that Spanish colonists did not understand the North American Southwest. I'm also confused [|about your additions calling genocide into question], as many of the sources added there do not refute the genocide claims made by the currently cited authors.Hobomok (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. Your assertion that "America" is a name that arises from indigenous people "via trade and shipping routes" is false. The name and concept of "America" comes from the European discoveries and cartography.
 * 2. With respect to Spanish America as a whole, no such entity ever existed before as a country, nation or empire of any indigenous civilization in South America. Spanish America is a construction of Spain. It is still reflected today in the borders of the Latin America countries that preserve the demarcations of the Spanish administration. There is no indigenous border in Spanish America.
 * 3. There is no single idea about Genocide and not all authors agree on the idea of a Genocide. There is a debate and this has to be reflected here. You should not delete the bibliography that says there is a debate. Thanks.--Vicentemovil (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I've not said the name "America" arises from Indigenous conceptions of the continent. The article does not say that either, which is why I'm confused about what you're trying to add. Related to discussion of genocide, this is why the language says "this has been argued," which is language that was decided on, on this talk page previously. I did not delete any bibliographic citations that say otherwise. I removed citations that did not question the idea that colonization involved acts of genocide. Please see archived talk page discussions related to these topics, wherein the original NPOV tag was removed, before adding such a tag again.--Hobomok (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1.Dunbar-Ortiz Indigenous Peoples'An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States That you provide does not contain any citations and is about the History of the United States.. But this article should essentially talk about Latin America, which better represents Spanish America. Not the United States that was a British colonization
 * 2.The article says that America was invaded. This is false because this concept does not exist until the European construction of the continent by discoveries and cartography. The borders of Latin America today are the colonial administrative demarcations of Spanish America. There have never been frontiers of indigenous nations as in the United States. That is a misconception that you export to Latin America.
 * 3. I did not mean to say that there are no authors who claim that there is a genocide. But the references you have deleted question the existence of that genocide. What I am saying is that there is a debate. It is not a single idea, there is no consensus on this issue as you claim.--Vicentemovil (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. Dunbar-Ortiz does cite sources, and the entire first chapter begins in South America and discusses the idea of interlocking and networked trade routes in South and North America.
 * 2. The conquest of America and subsequent colonization can indeed be understood as an invasion.
 * 3. I understand what you're saying. I'm explaining to you that the language introducing those claims is qualified with "it has been argued, ..." not an absolute like "this is known as...". I have never claimed there is a consensus. I am explaining that this language was decided upon previously, and those discussions are archived here. The sources you provided as calling into question the claims that there were acts of genocide during colonization do not call into question acts of genocide during colonization. --Hobomok (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * IMHO you are confusing the territorial expansion of the United States or British colonization in North America, to establish colonies of European population. In Latin America it is not the same because the incorporation or conquest of indigenous nations and states to add those indigenous people to the Spanish empire within its borders. You do not seem to understand that the indigenous peoples are Spanish people for the Spanish Empire. Please, read it again:the indigenous peoples are Spanish people for the Spanish Empire.
 * 1. Citation needed. These routes do not mean the knowledge of the whole continent as Americas, that knowledge was discovered by the Europeans.
 * 2. Citation needed. Since the continent was not known, but the Spanish Empire were discovering the geography and conquering indigenous state after state, of different states or kingdoms, even confronted. Never the invasion of the "Americas" because is not territorial expansion to establish colonies of European population.
 * 3."I have never claimed there is a consensus". Okay then write it down and say clear in the article: "there is no consensus on this issue.. etc".--Vicentemovil (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 1. I provided you a citation, but you do not want to engage with it.
 * 2. I'm still having real trouble understanding your argument. Are you trying to say that Spanish colonization was not an invasion because the Spanish Empire sought to subsume Indigenous peoples into their empire? There was never, for example, resource colonialism during colonization? Invasion cannot occur because the Spanish Empire sought to incorporate Indigenous populations into their empire? Your argument is very confusing.
 * 3. Again, this language was agreed upon previously on this talk page. It already shows that there is not agreement. Please see the relevant discussion in the archives.
 * If I am being completely honest with you, I am having real trouble engaging with you, mainly because you're not listening, but also because the manner in which you're not listening, and the edits you're making, fall in line with multiple accounts that have tried to make similar changes across Wikipedia over the last couple of years and have been banned for being sockpuppets. Something tells me you're very familiar with the previous discussions around the language on this talk page.--Hobomok (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1.Citation needed again. So far you have not provided any Citation about indigenous routes mean the knowledge of the whole continent as Americas, that knowledge was discovered by the Europeans.
 * 2.Citation needed again. The Inca empire was invaded and conquered. But not what did not exist: the whole "Americas" did not exist. It is not true that "The Americas were invaded and incorporated into the Spanish Empire". That expression like that is wrong.
 * 3.Genocide issue is confused in the article. You put it clear here in the discussion, just move on to the article: "I have never claimed there is a consensus" you say. --Vicentemovil (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Through this last reversal I have been able to see that there are two points in this discussion. 1. Invasion versus Invasions. 2. Genocide Debate.


 * 1. Invasion versus Invasions. The Americas were invaded and incorporated into the Spanish Empire. This affirmation at the head of the introduction is wrong and leads to error.


 * Spanish colonization of the Americas was a historical process of discovery, conquest and colonization beginning with the 1492 arrival of Christopher Columbus in the Caribbean, with the discovery in 1492 of the islands in the Antilles. Between 1519 and 1540 it reaches Continental America. And finally, it ends in 1565 with the establishment of settlements on the island of the Philippines, considered part of the viceroyalty of New Spain.


 * In 1507 the map Waldseemuller called the southern lands "America" in honor of Vespucci and presented a hypothesis of a "New World". The sphericity of the Earth was no longer in doubt, but Asia and America were still considered a single continent. It was only after Magellan's first circumnavigation of the world in 1522 that the existence of the Pacific Ocean was proven, and popularized in 1589 when the Pacific Ocean was first shown on a map, Maris Pacifici by Ortelius.


 * By this historical process the different states, kingdoms or empires of Indigenous peoples of the Americas were invaded and incorporated into the Spanish Empire, building a new world called America from cartography of discoveries, to be incorporated into Spanish social and economic systems.


 * Then, how can it be said that the Americas were invaded when did not exist?. In conclusion, there is not a single invasion of Americas, but many invasions of states, kingdoms or empires of Indigenous peoples of the Americas by the hand of discoveries and cartography. This sentence change complies with WP:Lead


 * 2. The existence of a genocide debate. This has been argued to be the first large-scale act of genocide in the modern era The consensus of the article is that there is bibliographic debate, but the affirmation IMO is confusing or subtle and does not reflect that there is a debate.


 * In this case the deleted bibliography should be added as references. But I am not going to insist on other change because I am not a native speaker, but I am saying that the consensus can and should change if a person with native knowledge of English finds this statement a subtlety or confusing.--Vicentemovil (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. In terms of your first argument, I think this is an issue of minutiae in combination the issue of translation you reference in your second point. The idea that the Spanish invaded the Americas, vs the idea that they invaded and incorporated Indigenous polities into the Spanish Empire via colonization is a small disagreement that is a matter of language. If a reader wants the specifics, they need only go into the body of the article.
 * 2. As far as your second point, again, the language there points to an "argument" that this can be considered genocide (in fact, it might be more accurate to say that this was a system of structural genocides). It does not say that Spanish colonization is "known as genocide." The citations you provided previously did not argue against what was stated, at least as far as I can tell, because page numbers were not cited.
 * 3. At this point, if you would still like to add all of this, I would suggest reaching out for a Request for Comment.--Hobomok (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hobomok, I don't think you need to even be that polite. Vicentemovil's argument on 1 is complete nonsense for anyone able to parse the English word . Even if there were no states anywhere in the pre-Columbian Americas (which is of course utterly false), the Spanish and Portuguese crowns launched prolonged military actions for the purpose of permanent annexation of new territory. Of course those were invasions... and of course they happened with such regularity and close and continuous repetition that they can practically be considered a single prolonged campaign over most of the length of this article.


 * I would say there might be a translation issue—especially given Vicente's admitted problems with English—but their name and this topic strongly imply a deep familiarity with Western European languages... all of which have exactly that exact same concept of invasion borrowed over from Latin invasio ("a rushing-in"). They're obviously just engaging in fatuous sophistry ("You can't invade a place that doesn't exist, can you? And they didn't have a flag, did they?") and the only question is whether they're doing so innocently out of genuine complete failure to parse concepts in their own native language or just making up reasons to avoid a word that makes the Spanish look bad. Attempting to ignore the centuries of racial castes to imagine the natives were welcomed as Spanish in a way those nasty Anglos never did for their natives certainly could go either way as well... neither involves a solid argument.


 * There are all kinds of reasons to place the Spanish in the appropriate context so readers don't come away from the article thinking they were especially evil. Sure, there were plenty of evil Spaniards (turns out Columbus was one of them! despite being Italian) and sometimes its particular history causes normal-looking Spanish words to unexpectedly double as torture devices in historical contexts... but the Aztecs and Incas didn't come to dominate Mesoamerica and the Andes by holding unbeatable bake sales. That's completely legitimate but it's no reason to keep feeding the troll. They're arguing in likely bad faith from certainly false assumptions for apparently biased ends... even assuming all the faith in the world for their arguing for "on the other hand" of the genocides that occurred. (Again, one thing to say it was never sustained policy intended or enacted with Nazi-like thoroughness but entirely another to pretend that lack means no people or cultures were ever targeted.)


 * Just note that they're mistaken about numerous basic parts of this history, several essential points on modern ethics and international law, and protect the page from any silly changes. Seems like they could benefit from reading this version of it. — Llywelyn II   12:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Add Philippines to Cuba and Puerto Rico
In addition to Cuba and Puerto Rico, Spain conceded the Philippines to the United States in 1898. 2600:4040:B508:4E00:59F:DCC5:4423:33DA (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Frederic March link
please change ((Frederic March)) to ((Fredric March)) 2601:541:4580:8500:D953:611:9F7D:634A (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ M.Bitton (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Sigorney Weaver link
please change ((Sigorney Weaver)) to ((Sigourney Weaver)) 2601:541:4580:8500:14E0:2815:3BAE:EA9F (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Hyphenation Expert (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Inaccuracy
"Among the foodstuffs that became staples in European cuisine and could be grown there were tomatoes, squashes... also nuts of various kinds: walnuts, cashews..." Walnut is native to Eurasia. Jfspivak (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I rmmoved walnuts, as not referenced, and you are correct on origin. If the article was not 'locked' against new editors you could have done this. David notMD (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, David. Didn't realize I could! :) Jfspivak (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * A semi-protected article such as this (lock at upper right) requires an editor to have an account that has existed for more than four days and made more than ten edits. David notMD (talk) 02:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly, yes, I've looked it up. I am yet to make 10 edits, and my account is a few hours old! Jfspivak (talk) 02:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)