Immediately, we are forced to struggle with several simultaneous challenges: the nature of colonial encounters, the discourses about these New World relationships, and the modern historical meaning that one understands when we say “the Black Legend.” For the purposes of this answer, I will address the discourses to which the term “Black Legend” refers.Īs you have no doubt learned, the term the Black Legend refers to the representations of Spain’s cruelty, backwardness, and barbarity with regards to New World contact. Since its creation, there has been a ton of stuff written on the subject as it has passed through decades of interpretation and reinterpretation. Therefore, it is a creation by historians to understand the past. Firstly, it is a term that arose later to ascribe meaning to a particular type of description of Spain’s interaction with the New World. You cannot edit your posts in this forum.The Black Legend is a very challenging subject. You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum. You cannot post new topics in this forum. The second was a deeper desire to convert, which included appealing to the minds and hearts of individual unbelievers by preaching, reasoning and if needed by force The first is because Spain wanted to ensure political and military means of safety and independence of their own religious community and even more so their predominance over others. There are two reasons why the Spaniards were so intent on spreading the Gospel. The White Legend speaks of how the Spaniards benefitted the Indian society by building communities, hospitals and spreading the Word of God. The Black Legend speaks of the Spaniards abusing the Indians and being guilty of much more misconduct than history has ever recorded. The interpretation of the Black Legend can depend on whom you are talking to. One definition used is through the Black Legend and the White Legend. The Black Legend and White Legend: Relationship Between the Spanish and Indians in the New World The Spanish-Indian relationship can be defined in many ways. To each their own but I'll never stop from questioning things and hope some of you don't either. Problem I find when discussing this on Internet is that a lot of people -even though clarifications were made- will take these words as that I'm claiming Spain was innocent and did nothing wrong.
But the stent in which the events happened have been greatly exaggerated, and thus why we can see inconsistencies of the sort as the one you mentioned. The article isn't questioning that the Spaniards did bad things, BECAUSE IT'S TRUE SPAIN DID BAD THINGS THERE (using capital letters for clarification). This doesn't happen in the USA where British effectively conquered by killing and outplacing. Yet the native American populations in the area are still today factually bigger and actually more relevant in comparison to North America, so how were then "effectively annihilated"? Sure the lands in Central America were a lot more populated but the truth remains that even today countries such as Mexico or Nicaragua have a large and fundamental influence by their indigenous cultures. Mezoamerican and South Amcrican Native civilizations were effectively annihilated and the population was forcibly converted to Christianity.
0 kommentar(er)
