Read The Forum Rules: We have a clear set of rules to keep the forum running smoothly. Click here to review them.

Poll: The Christianization of the native peoples in the Americas?
For
Against
[Show Results]
 
Post Reply 
The Christianization of Latin America in the 16th century. Good or Bad?
Author Message
Dr. Howard Offline
Peacock
******
Gold Member

Posts: 6,512
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 78
Post: #26
RE: The Christianization of Latin America in the 16th century. Good or Bad?
(09-28-2015 03:46 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  To me, the more interesting question is this:

Why were there such big cultural differences between the Europeans who settled North America and the Europeans who settled South America?

Why did the Spanish and Portuguese intermarry and mix with the Indians of Central and South America, while the Indians of North America did not mix (or at least very little) with the northern European types (English, Dutch, German, Scandinavian) that settled North America?

Indians in North America were essentially wiped out.

In Central and South America, they were also brutalized, but there was a large degree of admixture with the colonizers. Spanish and Portuguese took native wives, and also reproduced with slaves.

British didn't really do this, or at least not as much.

North America was a caste system that was very rigid. Why was this?

Was it climate? Geography? Cultural differences between the Mediterranean races and the Northern Europeans?

Good questions QC. Same thing in the southern Philippines under spanish rule, spanish intermarried with locals.

America is a good example with some small exceptions. So, here in appalachian Tennessee there was plenty of intermarrying/cooperation with the natives and you can see Cherokee features in plenty of girls around here (straight black hair, flat feet, no butt) Davey Crockett actually took a lot of political damage because he opposed the Indian Removal Act. Wheras the rest of america and Canada took an extermination policy (for the most part).

Canada's Davey Crockett equivalent was Louis Riel and again, in Manitoba there was a big culture of intermarrying and Metis (mixed) families.

Why do the heathen rage and the people imagine a vain thing? Psalm 2:1 KJV
09-28-2015 05:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Dr. Howard's post:
Kaligula
EL CHAPO Offline
Banned

Posts: 195
Joined: Aug 2015
Post: #27
RE: The Christianization of Latin America in the 16th century. Good or Bad?
(09-28-2015 02:59 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  A more interesting question would be:

What would South America look like if it had been Protestant missionaries, not Catholics?


To me, Catholicism and Protestantism are almost the same thing.

I mean they both believe in Christ right? Therefore they fall under the same umbrella that is Christianity.
(This post was last modified: 09-28-2015 05:21 PM by EL CHAPO.)
09-28-2015 05:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Samseau Offline
Owl
******
Gold Member

Posts: 14,583
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 293
Post: #28
RE: The Christianization of Latin America in the 16th century. Good or Bad?
(09-28-2015 02:41 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  But in those days, religious chauvinism was the rule. There was no such thing as "tolerance" or "cooexistence" in those days. They considered the Indians to be devil-worshippers, and thought they were doing the work of God by destroying their civilization.

This usually goes unsaid in the discussion of the Aztec conquest, but the Spanish were really just the most Islamic version of Christianity ever created.

After being ruled by Muslims for 600 years, the methods in order to achieve independence from Islam was brutal. The inquisition was the Christian response to purging a body of all alien elements, and ironically the methods used by the Christians were basically a mirror of Islam itself, casting out all Muslims and Jews with Christians on top, essentially inverting the normal hierarchy of Islam > Jews > Christians with extreme prejudice.

This spirit of Spanish Christian Inquisition was then carried over to South America, the most aggressive and violent of any Christian societies ever created. South America in many ways was a victim of Islam as much as Christian Spain was.

Even still, much of the brutality of the Conquistadors is still overshadowed by the fact that the Conquistadors were such a small group that took down a force thousands of times larger than itself. This was only possible due to the plagues that the Spanish unwittingly transmitted to the locals. The diseases that ravaged South America was such an extraordinary phenomenon that it can only really be understood as an act of God himself who wanted the land Christianized and let the Conquistadors reformat the continent.

Contributor at Return of Kings. You can follow me on Gab.

Be sure to check out the easiest mining program around, FreedomXMR.
09-28-2015 05:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Samseau's post:
Moto
Quintus Curtius Offline
Crow
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 4,060
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 247
Post: #29
RE: The Christianization of Latin America in the 16th century. Good or Bad?
Pretty big difference between the Protestant and Catholic cultures.

From what I've seen, experienced, and read, it's a hell of a lot more fun to be in a Catholic country....Banana

Great post above, El Chapo. I liked it. Very much.

| qcurtius.com | Twitter
09-28-2015 05:54 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Quintus Curtius's post:
EL CHAPO
Dr. Howard Offline
Peacock
******
Gold Member

Posts: 6,512
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 78
Post: #30
RE: The Christianization of Latin America in the 16th century. Good or Bad?
(09-28-2015 05:12 PM)EL CHAPO Wrote:  
(09-28-2015 02:59 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  A more interesting question would be:

What would South America look like if it had been Protestant missionaries, not Catholics?


To me, Catholicism and Protestantism are almost the same thing.

I mean they both believe in Christ right? Therefore they fall under the same umbrella that is Christianity.

Go to belfast and pose that same question.

Why do the heathen rage and the people imagine a vain thing? Psalm 2:1 KJV
09-28-2015 05:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 4 users Like Dr. Howard's post:
Quintus Curtius, Saweeep, blacknwhitespade, teh_skeeze
WalterBlack Offline
Ostrich
****

Posts: 2,590
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 25
Post: #31
RE: The Christianization of Latin America in the 16th century. Good or Bad?
(09-28-2015 03:46 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  To me, the more interesting question is this:

Why were there such big cultural differences between the Europeans who settled North America and the Europeans who settled South America?

Why did the Spanish and Portuguese intermarry and mix with the Indians of Central and South America, while the Indians of North America did not mix (or at least very little) with the northern European types (English, Dutch, German, Scandinavian) that settled North America?

Indians in North America were essentially wiped out.

In Central and South America, they were also brutalized, but there was a large degree of admixture with the colonizers. Spanish and Portuguese took native wives, and also reproduced with slaves.

British didn't really do this, or at least not as much.

North America was a caste system that was very rigid. Why was this?

Was it climate? Geography? Cultural differences between the Mediterranean races and the Northern Europeans?

The English, who settled in North America, also sent guys over to India at the same time. There were almost zero white women there, so a lot of them married Indian women.

White mischief

Quote:The wills of East India Company officials, now in the India Office library, clearly show that in the 1780s, more than one-third of the British men in India were leaving all their possessions to one or more Indian wives, or to Anglo-Indian children - a degree of cross-cultural mixing which has never made it into the history books

In the more loving relationships of this period, Indian wives often retired with their husbands to England. The Mughal travel writer, Mirza Abu Taleb Khan, who published in Persian an account of his journey to Europe in 1810, described meeting in London several completely Anglicised Indian women who had accompanied their husbands and children to Britain. One of them in particular, Mrs Ducarroll, surprised him every bit as much as Kirkpatrick tended to surprise his English visitors: "She is very fair," wrote Khan, "and so accomplished in all the English manners and language, that I was some time in her company before I could be convinced that she was a native of India." He added: "The lady introduced me to two or three of her children, from 16 to 19 years of age, who had every appearance of Europeans." A great many such mixed-blood children must have been quietly and successfully absorbed into the British establishment, some even attaining high office: Lord Liverpool, the early-19th-century prime minister, was of Anglo-Indian descent.

Much, however, depended on skin colour. As a Calcutta agent wrote to Warren Hastings, the governor-general of India, when discussing what to do with his Anglo-Indian step-grandchildren: "The two eldest - [who] are almost as fair as European children - should be sent to Europe. I could have made no distinction between the children if the youngest was of a complexion that could possibly escape detection; but as I daily see the injurious consequences resulting from bringing up certain [darker-skinned] native children at home, it has become a question in my own mind how far I should confer a service in recommending the third child" to proceed to England. It was decided, in the end, that the "dark" child should stay in India, while the others were shipped to Britain.

The future of such children depended very much on the whims of their parents. One of the most unashamedly enthusiastic British embracers of Mughal culture during this period was General Sir David Ochterlony: every evening, all 13 of his Indian wives went around Delhi in a procession behind their husband, each on the back of her own elephant. But beneath this enviably carefree-sounding exterior seems to have lain the sort of tensions that affect anyone who straddles two very different and diverging worlds.

One of the most moving of Ochterlony's letters concerns his two daughters, and the question of whether he should bring them up as Muslim or Christian. If Christian, they would be constantly derided for their "dark blood", but Ochterlony also hesitated to bring them up as Muslims. A letter, written to another Scot in a similar position, who has opted to bring up his children as Muslim Indians, ends rather movingly: "In short my dear M[ajor] I have spent all the time since we were parted in revolving this matter in my mind but I have not yet been able to come to a positive decision."

This period of intermixing did not last: the rise of the Victorian Evangelicals in the 1830s and 40s slowly killed off the intermingling of Indian and British ideas, religions and ways of life. The wills written by dying East India Company servants show that the practice of marrying or cohabiting with Indian bibis quickly began to decline: from turning up in one-in-three wills between 1780 and 1785, they are present in only one-in-four between 1805 and 1810. By 1830, it is one-in-six; by the middle of the century, they have all but disappeared.

Major William Palmer and his Indian wife Bibi Faiz Bakhsh Begum (1785)

[Image: Screen%2BShot%2B2015-02-24%2Bat%2B8.09.45%2BPM.png]

The mixing got as far as the British Royal Family:

Quote:Britain's royal family has long been taunted for its German roots, but now a more exotic lineage can be revealed after evidence emerged indicating that Prince William is the direct descendant of an Indian woman.

The Duke of Cambridge's maternal lineage was revealed on Friday by a genetic ancestry testing company, BritainsDNA, which carried out tests on the DNA of Princess Diana's two matrilineal cousins and compared them to a global database of samples.

The Portuguese shipped their female orphans abroad to stop mixing, obviously it didn’t work

Órfãs d'El-Rei

Quote:Orfãs do Rei translates to "Orphans of the King", and they were all girls. Their fathers were Portuguese men who died in battle for the king. They were sent to the colonies of the Portuguese Empire. The Asian colonies contained more Portuguese females than was previously thought.[6] Bernard Sta Maria wrote that "From 1545, King John III began to send to India (and the Far East) with all pomp and distinction many young Portuguese women known as 'Orphans of the Queen' to be married with local young men." Both noble and non noble girls were in the órfãs do rei.

Since these girls were specifically designated as the "King's", the Portuguese government paid for their care and upbringing before and after they were sent to Portuguese India. Goa in particular received most of the girls. Some were also sent to the colony of Brazil. The "Shelter of the Castle" was one of the organizations which arranged for the órfãs do rei to be sent overseas. The age limits were 12–30 years of age.
….
One of the aims of shipping the órfãs was to stop Portuguese men from miscegenating with women of other races and provide them with Portuguese wives. The prevention of miscegenation would have resulted in a greater amount of white Portuguese. The sex ratio between men and women in Goa was skewed and the shipments of órfãs do rei was an attempt to correct this.

Some órfãs do Rei married native rulers who ere either in exiled or allied to the Portuguese.

The exiled former ruler (liwali) of Pemba converted to Christianity from Islam and was married to an órfã do rei named Dona Anna de Sepulveda in 1607. He also changed his name to Felipe da Gama, Dom Filipe, or Philip. However he became Muslim again later. One child, a son, Estevao was born from their marriage. He had been exiled from Pemba to Mombasa in 1596.

In the 1500s the exiled ruler of the Maldives, Hassan converted to Christianity and also married a Portuguese orphan. Her name was D. Francisca de Vasconcelos. The Portuguese girls also in Goa married native high caste Christians.
(This post was last modified: 09-28-2015 06:23 PM by WalterBlack.)
09-28-2015 06:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like WalterBlack's post:
SupaDorkLooza, Kaligula
Belgrano Offline
Ostrich
****
Gold Member

Posts: 1,869
Joined: Mar 2011
Reputation: 37
Post: #32
RE: The Christianization of Latin America in the 16th century. Good or Bad?
(09-28-2015 05:15 PM)Samseau Wrote:  
(09-28-2015 02:41 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  But in those days, religious chauvinism was the rule. There was no such thing as "tolerance" or "cooexistence" in those days. They considered the Indians to be devil-worshippers, and thought they were doing the work of God by destroying their civilization.

This usually goes unsaid in the discussion of the Aztec conquest, but the Spanish were really just the most Islamic version of Christianity ever created.

After being ruled by Muslims for 600 years, the methods in order to achieve independence from Islam was brutal. The inquisition was the Christian response to purging a body of all alien elements, and ironically the methods used by the Christians were basically a mirror of Islam itself, casting out all Muslims and Jews with Christians on top, essentially inverting the normal hierarchy of Islam > Jews > Christians with extreme prejudice.

This spirit of Spanish Christian Inquisition was then carried over to South America, the most aggressive and violent of any Christian societies ever created. South America in many ways was a victim of Islam as much as Christian Spain was.

Great observation. Just as Friedrich Nietzsche said:
"Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you."

Quote:Even still, much of the brutality of the Conquistadors is still overshadowed by the fact that the Conquistadors were such a small group that took down a force thousands of times larger than itself.

Concerning the Aztecs, the fact that the people of the empire, subjugated city states and conquered tribes joined the Spanish to liberate themselves from the Aztec yoke, especially the endless mass human sacrifices, certainly helped. The Spanish expedition force was supported by thousands of allied native rebels who seized the opportunity to end the Aztec hegemony. Otherwise Cortés would not have stood a chance, the Aztecs would eventually have overwhelmed the conquistadores by sheer force of numbers. Though this would have just delayed the inevitable, no doubt about that.

Quote:The diseases that ravaged South America was such an extraordinary phenomenon that it can only really be understood as an act of God himself who wanted the land Christianized and let the Conquistadors reformat the continent.

Deus lo vult, I see. Let´s just say that everyone is entitled to their own opinions.
09-28-2015 06:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Belgrano's post:
Kaligula
alexdagr81 Offline
Woodpecker
**

Posts: 411
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 1
Post: #33
RE: The Christianization of Latin America in the 16th century. Good or Bad?
It was pretty much demographical reasons. Iberians sent mostly single men to areas with large empires (and therefore large populations) while the US and Canada didn't have a previous large empires (therefore much smaller populations) and whole families went to those areas instead of just military single men.
09-28-2015 06:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like alexdagr81's post:
EL CHAPO, Quintus Curtius
EL CHAPO Offline
Banned

Posts: 195
Joined: Aug 2015
Post: #34
RE: The Christianization of Latin America in the 16th century. Good or Bad?
There's 7 people who voted "against" but haven't really given their arguments yet, except for frenchcorporation.

I would really like to hear some of these arguments.
09-28-2015 08:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
iop890 Offline
Crow
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 5,930
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 93
Post: #35
RE: The Christianization of Latin America in the 16th century. Good or Bad?
(09-28-2015 05:01 PM)EL CHAPO Wrote:  Here are some quotes from a couple of Spanish conquistadors from a New Spain book I'm currently reading

What's the name of the book.
09-30-2015 01:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
EL CHAPO Offline
Banned

Posts: 195
Joined: Aug 2015
Post: #36
RE: The Christianization of Latin America in the 16th century. Good or Bad?
(09-30-2015 01:05 AM)iop890 Wrote:  
(09-28-2015 05:01 PM)EL CHAPO Wrote:  Here are some quotes from a couple of Spanish conquistadors from a New Spain book I'm currently reading

What's the name of the book.

If you're a novice on Latin America, I recommend Mark A. Buckholder's and Lyman L. Johnson's "Colonial Latin America". Its a very easy and great read. The Spanish conquest of Mexico has to be one of the most interesting events in human history.

Here's the cover:

[Image: 654723.jpg]


The book I'm currently reading right now is a bigger book, and has more detailed insight on the life in Colonial Latin America after the conquest The book is named "A History of Latin America" by Peter Bakewell. I really like this one because it has maps to help guide you and illustrated images and photographs.

Here's how it looks like:

[Image: 41ZEQWYPESL._SX333_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg]


There's a lot of great books on Latin American history out there. One area I'm very fascinated by.
(This post was last modified: 09-30-2015 02:23 AM by EL CHAPO.)
09-30-2015 02:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes EL CHAPO's post:
iop890
RedPillUK Offline
Pelican
****

Posts: 1,436
Joined: Mar 2015
Reputation: 18
Post: #37
RE: The Christianization of Latin America in the 16th century. Good or Bad?
I think its very hard to answer the original question as we only know what did happen, and can only speculate on what might have happened.

Who knows what would have happened if the Spanish didn't invade Latin America?

From what did happen it's clear there was a huge loss of history, gold, land and people. However at least the people weren't completely exterminated as you can see from Latin America today, it also replaced their religion with one not requiring human sacrifice, and brought a more modern way of life there. However I'm not sure these positives outweigh all the negatives, maybe these things could have happened in time without a brutal invasion.
09-30-2015 04:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Saweeep Offline
Banned

Posts: 3,541
Joined: Apr 2014
Post: #38
RE: The Christianization of Latin America in the 16th century. Good or Bad?
So what do we think would have happened if SA had been colonised by the British?

No matter what anyone says, former British colonies are doing pretty well globally. Rule of Law, government institutions etc.

In my opinion, Victorian Britain got just about everything right.
(This post was last modified: 09-30-2015 10:33 AM by Saweeep.)
09-30-2015 10:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Saweeep's post:
Samseau
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | RooshV.com | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication