Talk:Spanish Empire

LIES

Genocide??? What are you talking about!!?? Is this history or English propaganda??? And the worst part is that that word doesn't even appear in the British empire article!!! Sorry if I'm being aggressive, it's just that it makes me really angry that history is wrongly told. Please, someone fix the false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tepelyt (talk • contribs) 10:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The use of "genocide" in this article is supported by reliable sources. Everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable from reliable sources, and such sources are cited in the article. If you know of reliable sources that speak of genocide in the English/British Empire, then you can add that to the appropriate articles, being careful to cite reliable sources that support it. - Donald Albury 15:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I can't edit it, because it is semi-protected. But I have sources: "España, la primera globalicación", a documentary by José Luis López-Linares that disproves Spain's black leyend, that disproves that Spain did a genocide againts de indigenous people of America, and it also tells what actually happens, it explains the story how it was. If you, or someone else can correct what I previously mentioned about the genocide thing, I would appreciate it. Tepelyt (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but a documentary film is not enough to justify removal of content cited to scholarly works. Per the policy at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, sources denying genocide occurred may be used if they are comparable to the exisitng sources in reliability, but I personally would prefer scholarly works from established publishers over a documentary film. The decision on what to include is subject to a consensus of the community. A more fruitful discussion may be over whether the current wording could be modified to reflect how much of the overwhelming loss of native populations resulted from intentional actions by the Spanish. - Donald Albury 16:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the help, I can't do anything else. If a documentary where 39 historians participated is not enough, I give up. I'm not going to waste time trying to find something. If someone who dedicates time to Wikipedia can find sources that Wikipedia accepts, thank you. Tepelyt (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the OP covered themselves in glory with their opening line but they have a point. I've looked at the "genocide" paragraph; there is a tendency amongst modern historians to regularly label the activities of the European Empires as genocidal. This being a case in point, the following sentences then go on to give a more balanced view. We also use the weasel wording Some scholars, when it is specifically attributed to Naimark, Norman (2016). Genocide: A World History. p. 35. If you look at reviews of that work eg [1] a valid criticism of the work is the overly encompassing definition of what constitutes a genocide, which is expanded to include the accidental introduction of disease into communities with no immunity. If you ask the average person what the word actually means they would define it something like the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group. As such I don't see the Spanish Empire would qualify in that respect since there was no such intent. We need to be wary of editors using such broad definitions in the application of overly emotive wording to articles on wikipedia. Coming to a conclusion, I would suggest the word isn't used in this context as it would mislead many readers and we should be careful of the word use in scholarly articles and not blindly follow them. WCM_email 09:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I do not have expertise on genocide and its definitions, but I do engage with Pre-columbian peoples. But from reading your definition, I think the Spanish Empire absolutely qualifies for that, tho the responsibility goes to the collective effort, not to an individual person. Toledo's reforms in Andean America, among other things, and the atrocities happening in Mesoamerica are of note. While it is a mainstream view that disease killed most of the population, there was a collective evangelical effort to erase a religion, and by extension the pre-hispanic state that followed it. Plus gold and power were still the conquistador's main objective, no matter what stands in the way. The conscious reforms of the administration, making for exemple ancient institutions of the Andes essentially slavery, and the entire idea of an encomienda, in addition to the clearly declared evangelical mission, all show a will to erase another nation, and of killing its people (or whats left of them. Even tho the natives were almost all dead by now, materiel motivation didn't exclusively drive the spaniards, and often, yes, there were massacres, not because of materiel needs). So from your definition, yea, definitely. Encyclopédisme (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

If reliable sources say it was genocide, we call it genocide. If there is disagreement in reliable sources as to the occurrence or extent of genocide, then Wikipedia:Neutral point of view applies. Donald Albury 01:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Indigenous activists & scholars of South/Central American descent frequently refer to the Spanish conquests as being genocidal in intent and nature. Spanish nationalist propaganda holds that the Catholic Spaniards were "benevolent" conquerers, and that Spain did not retain colonies, but rather incorporated full, new territories. Perhaps most eyebrow raising is the belief that the indigenous peoples were "treated equally by decree" - "They married the local women!" - well yeah, to control them and their bloodlines. To wipe out their culture. To set up a system that benefited the Spanish crown.

All of the colonial apologia is heavily disputed, criticised and snarked at by modern historiography and activism, not "English propaganda". None of this modern day reappraisal originates in England!

Spanish nationalism is *extremely* self-pitying, and one bedrock element of its continued propagation is the belief that the English today spread the "black legend" still - which is a farcical claim. Britain is far too busy denying its own colonial crimes to troll Spain these days, and British nationalists really don't have Spain in their sights when it comes to propagating xenophobic antagonism. That's pretty much reserved for everyone else in Western European *except* for Spain! (And Portugal). SinoDevonian (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Map (yes, again again again, this time by a Spaniard)

As a Spaniard myself I have to say this, the files SpanishEmpire1790.svg and Imperios Español y Portugués 1790.svg are fake, Nutka territory, Patagonia and the Essequibo were never part of the Empire (were as Spanish as, for example, the Kamchatka Peninsula which according to the Treaty of Tordesillas was "Spanish"), they were just reclamations but Spain never possesed them. And despite Louisiana and Florida were part of the Empire, Spain only controlled New Orleans, Mobile, Pensacola, Saint Agustine and some forts, the rest of the land was in native hands or wild nature.

So please, can you post an actual map of the effective Spanish territory? Thanks. 83.58.27.132 (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

This is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Do please feel free to post an accurate map. Furius (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Mate, it's not free to edit if it's protected. 83.58.27.132 (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

You can always make an edit request on the talk page, or wait until the protection expires (and long term page protection is rare). Donald Albury 01:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

War of Jenkins Ear

The article says "The British suffered 25,000 dead or wounded and lost nearly 5,000 ships during the war". This appears to misinterpret the source cited as listing solely British casualties rather than the total casualties on both sides. The Wikipedia article on the war seems to agree that the total casualties of the war were 25,000 with British casualties being 20,000.

Also, 5000 ships lost seems like a ridiculous figure and is most likely a typo in the source, since it's unlikely the British even had 5000 ships, let alone lost that many. Such a number would make it one of the biggest naval wars in history, rather than a largely forgotten colonial squabble of little significance. The wikipedia article on the war gives British ship losses as 407, and it seems likely that the cited source contains a typo and is supposed to be 500 (and, as with the previous figure, is meant to be the total of both sides' losses rather than just British losses).

Can someone who is able to edit the article fix this? 2A00:23A8:4C05:DB01:F970:34E:9161:D494 (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Citation needed on Cortes directing burning of Aztec documents and cultural relics

Hi, I have never seen any evidence of Cortés himself conducting widespread, intentional cultural destruction in Mexico- can you please provide a citation for the following statement: "Cortés directed the burning of Aztec books and records, destroyed monuments, removed idols from temples, and purged the sites of sacrificial remnants to prepare the locations for Catholic worship." 142.180.3.116 (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Dates

Fun fact, according to the dates of the Spanish Empire (1492-1976), both Spanish Republics (First Republic 1873-74 and Second Republic 1931-39) and the Francoist dictatorship were Imperial too, so the titles Hispanic / Catholic Monarchy should be used while keeping in mind the dates.

Plus the map is fake. 83.58.148.140 (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)