So why did spain not kill all the natives in SA whereas the english immigrants killed the natives in NA...

So why did spain not kill all the natives in SA whereas the english immigrants killed the natives in NA? Is it because they were simply nicer?

Attached: main-qimg-7c7939347cb039c6b5b9b449720b7564.gif (602x471, 72K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Moctezuma_de_Tultengo
youtube.com/watch?v=douqH7pZzXc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

I think because there weren't enough Spainards to populate SA so they mixed with the locals

there were a lot more natives in latin america.

Subsequent local governments tried culling the natives too, but there were simply too many of them

there was a fuckton of natives in SA
not so much in NA, at least not in the same magnitude

They both killed injuns in similar amounts.
Spaniards just integrated them into their society and settlements whereas the english
segregated them.

There were 30 million natives in central Mexico alone. 15 million Mayas. Millions more in South America.

>english immigrants killed the natives in NA?

I fucking wish. You have no idea how much less crime we would have in Canada if this were the case.

Attached: winnipegman.jpg (500x281, 127K)

There were more natives in latam but indeed Spaniards were far nicer than the british, romance societies are more "inclusive" because they were acustomed to deal with non-europeans, spaniards did things like providing nobiliary titles to native rulers, wrote the codex which to this day are our main source of information regarding precolumbine societies, created the Consejo de Indias by decree of Juana of Castille which remained until the fall of the Habsburgs, and which main function was protecting the rights of native americans and making sure they would recieve both christian education and christian names

Daily reminder that oeru and bolivia, the two most native countries in latin america, rejected independance until San Martin genocided both the white loyalist peruvians and the indian caciques

>wrote the codex which to this day are our main source of information regarding precolumbine societies
Spaniards in Central America burned all of the writings of the Maya, they had entire libraries filled with literature and history and now only 4 Maya codices survive.

lmao, youre that butthurt white guy who has a hard-on for natives i see all the time here.
get out of winnipeg tb.h. It aint hard

>now only 4 Maya codices survive
what kind of ancient magical knowledge is in those records

bullshit, how come spain conquer it then? spain had 4 millions at the timr

Eat shit Chief Crawlingdrunk.

Most of the fighting in Mexico was done by Native allies of the Spanish. There were a hundred native soldiers for every Spanish soldier during the siege of Tenochtitlan.

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-03-20 at 4.31.37 PM.png (414x760, 122K)

>writings of the maya
LMAOOOOO
Who the fuck keeps pushing this bullshit
The spaniards were the only ones that preserved aztec registries, even during the fucking conquest they were writing antropolical treaties regarding native american civilizaciones

Nahualt was NOT a written language, its writting was basal as fuck and gerogriphical, most of its text explained by educated guesswork rather than grammared reddaction

The native americans only started writing codexes like the Ozuna Codex after they saw the spanish doing it

The Maya were not part of the Aztec Empire. They speak Maya languages like K'iche and Yucatec, not Nahuatl you idiot.

Why kill them when you can sex them?

Explain more. The Spanish conquest of Mexico never really seemed comparable to what happened in North America, but I could definitely be wrong about this. The Aztecs were serious warriors and technologically advanced, not like the hunter/gatherers in Canada, what happened down there sounds like legitimate warfare.

The majority of the genocides came after you became independent and went Manifest Destiny, that shit is squarely on you guys.

In Canada we had residential schools where we attempted to integrate the natives into our society by teaching them how to be British. Attending these schools was mandatory for native children and teens, and they were sometimes subjected to physical and sexual abuse. The last residential school closed in 1996, but by then the schools weren't as bad and it wasn't mandatory.

>how come spain conquer it then?
Magic.
We had plans also to take China with 22k people and 200 boats, just after Philipines

>Spanish China

Attached: 1521495257327.gif (400x293, 421K)

The aztecs were posterior to the maya, if your theory was right then the well preserved mayan codex with very well written annals wouldve been carefully studied and adopted by the aztecs after defeating the mayans dozens of times, weird then that not a fucking nahualt inscription is something other than ritualistic moonrunes or mundane registries of shit like grains and wheat

>Ozuna Codex
u wot?

Attached: ozuna.jpg (620x356, 55K)

topkek, i know ive heard that from somewhere. rood

Attached: 0692B1A8-FC81-4419-BB6A-D3A22E843A7F.jpg (1280x1007, 75K)

desease and treason but mostly desease it wiped out hundreads of the Aztecs during the siege, also the lake under the city is half salt half drinkable
So it was easy to starve the population
The Aztec were not very nice to their neighbors so it was easy to turn them agains them
Also it maybe is a minor part but the Aztecs had a military tradition that if the man carrying their banner or symbol fell they would surrender or flee the battle
It must be said, the Aztecs or “mexica” people are still around same with the maya

everybody hated the aztecs. and when the spaniards arrived, the vassal/enemies of the aztecs (tlaxcala and co.) believed them to be gods and allied against the aztec empire.

Did you just call Spain weak?

Attached: spen.png (438x425, 221K)

KEK

The residential schools weren't a bad idea in theory. I never bought the "cultural genocide" arguments, the real problem here was the religious institutions were letting degenerate priests near children, which affected white kids too.

Its really a quesiton of logistics, were the united states now is was fucking huge with a few indians scattered around the whole contient.

Mexico had a fucking huge population of indians compared to usa where the english were. So it was just harder to kill that many indians , and anglo's in some ways were just as bad as spanish conqusitadors.

When disease came it wiped out most usa indians, while mexicos popualtion also got killed by 50% their numbers were enough to still become a majority in the country in the 19th and 20th century

fuck i hate when i typed all that shit and a cunt already said wat i said

catholic autism. didn't prevent them from killing natives but gave them a reason to not be total assholes

Aztecs lived in a completely different region in central Mexico whereas the Maya were still around and lived in southern Mexico and Guatemala separated by other groups. The Aztecs never came close to conquering them. You don't know what you're talking about. They're completely different people.

>The Aztecs were serious warriors and technologically advanced
Their weapons were pretty poor in comparison to Spain's though.

>Britain bullied China into allowing their Opium drug trade
>Massacres of native amerindians in NA
>The belgian congo in africa getting the worst treatment in the whole continent for decades
How can people think spaniards were the "bad guys" of colonialism

Idk about SA but in the Caribbean they killed all the natives or raped them out of existence

>this tread again and again

>There were more natives in latam but indeed Spaniards were far nicer than the british, romance societies are more "inclusive" because they were acustomed to deal with non-europeans

This. Rest is BS. We even have a nobility title for the descendants of Moctezuma II.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Moctezuma_de_Tultengo

Because the *Nglo "man" wants to keep the IBERIAN BULL down.

>How can people think spaniards were the "bad guys" of colonialism
They don't, they think we were.

American propaganda

North America was very sparsely populated and the few natives were mostly nomads or semi-nomads, it was mostly virgin land ready to be settled by european farmers
Mesoamerica and the Andes however were densely populated and organized in sedentary societies, they lived in cities ready to be conquered and ruled

In short north America (and Patagonia) was conquered from nature, Mesoamerica and the Andes were conquered from men

well fuck, i guess my ancestors didnt exist
môniyacisk

Why do people think that raping instead of killing somehow makes you less evil?

There's new studies that point out that the population of North America was far greater than the population that Europeans met. The diseases simply moved ahead of the later Europeans moving north of Mexico and west of the 13 colonies.

Even then I doubt that the Anglos would've done anything different. I'd picture a South Africa style colonization, and it would be interesting to see how differently the relations between the different warring natives and whites would be in comparison to what happened in South Africa.

The English immigrants only killed the natives in defense. Quit with your fake history

The real reason is diseases

North Americans were mixed with Vikings so they bred into the white population easier

Fucking tlaxcalans.
Traitorous Otomi scum.

Otomis don't live in Tlaxcala, I think they live further north

The Crown of Castille had 7 million and the Crown of Aragon had 1 million, for comparison the Aztec Triple Alliance had 6 million.

And the Inca Empire had around 12 million.

Latin America became independent because of the "Spanish" minority that was born in the Americas, and had less rights than the Spaniards born in Spain who came here.

The natives prefered the king of Spain to our local Spanish elites, and didnt support independence in general.

The tyrant who is far away on the other side of the ocean, is preferable to the one you have near and see every day.

>Be aztec
>have big stick
>no decent armor beacause of the heat.
>Be spanish
>armed as fuck,medieval style
>Fucking guns

Because given the chance to exterminate someone or fucking them out of existence, Southern-Americans chose the latter.

Not exactly true.

Spaniards ended using native cotton armors, especially due to the temperatures and because they were especially conceived against cutting weapons like the Aztecs had, in the same nature guns had little to no use in the early Conquest of the Americas warfare and ranged weapons like the crossbows were far more used than guns. Guns made sense in Europe because they were better against heavy armored enemies, but in Mexico a crossbow was more efficient.

would you rather be raped or be killed

How many women can be raped after entering a conquered city or village anyway?

A man can only rape one but a single woman can be raped many times, still if an army of 1000 men enters a town where 10,000 women live, not all women can be raped unless they just enslave the women or stay in the city raping the women every day, but it is absurd due to how things would work with locals rebelling for the abuse and the same conquering authorities wanting to make peace with the conquered peoples in exchange for them to be ruled. Governors, even colonial ones, would want to be accepted and cheered by their conquered peoples.

Also, would you really want to rape after an exhausting long-day battle? And, didn't they have moral standards too? Like, many of them were educated and had religious instruction, none of them had moral doubts about that? We seem to look at the past with very dark lenses.

We are talking about Renaissance Spain, this wasn't the paleolithic.

Attached: 1506465555376.jpg (2723x2000, 2.4M)

think of all the women who slept with nazi soldiers in occupied France and Norway.

Women will fuck the powerful willingly always, in all of space and time

>Like, many of them were educated and had religious instruction, none of them had moral doubts about that?
The soldiers were illiterate peasants. Even some of the conquistadors couldn't read. For example, Francisco Pizarro, who was the leader of the expedition to conquer the Incas, was illiterate. In general, the Spanish soldiers were pieces of shit. The only educated people on the expeditions were the priests, and they were horrified by how poorly the conquistadors treated the natives.

Sorry but it's the truth/facts

>North America was very sparsely populated and the few natives were mostly nomads or semi-nomads, it was mostly virgin land ready to be settled by european farmers

This is just something Europeans say to justify the fucked up shit they did to Natives/Amerindians. North America's native population was 50m to 100m

Cortés was fairly educated, he attended the University of Salamanca and was proficient in Latin, and you should take everything that people like Bartolomé de las Casas said with a big grain of salt.
I assume you speak spanish given the amount of butthurt you show, listen to this interview:
youtube.com/watch?v=douqH7pZzXc

So Hans were fucking Pierrettes and Olgas but now Hans complains that Hansette gets fucked by Mohammed?

Assuming disease wasn't a factor, is there any possibility the Aztecs could have defeated the Spaniards in battle, considering they were an empire with a large population and a history of warfare?

I'm not butthurt, just stating facts. Hernan Cortes wasn't the only conquistador in the Americas you know?

I mean, they still literally had only arrows and shit. Throw a bunch of Spaniards with guns and horses and you're settling a panic in the entire village. Imagine you never saw horses nor guns and then suddenly you see a pale man riding an animal and shooting someting super loud that instantly kills your Indian bro. Must be terrifying to be tbqh.

Definitely. There were only a thousand Spanish infantry, and they needed a hundred thousand native soldiers fighting for them to defeat the Aztecs. It's not like they invaded with machine guns and warships.

Agreed, but I figure after some horrendous initial losses they could've eventually won after gathering more intel, only because reinforcing an army from Spain to Mexico would be literally impossible for centuries.

Classic saying “God made men; Colonel Colt made them equal”

It would've been extremely hard

Depends.
Explorers encountered all kinds of natives. Some ran away at the sight of pale men they though were the living dead, others couldn't give two shits about no thunder stick.

How to make tasty corn tortillas

because they enslaved local people to mine gold and silver. Who would mine ore if they genocide them?

Because their conquest of the Incas and Aztecs was no different than conquering land in Europe
They replaced the local leadership with their own and redirected taxes to Spain

every indian v. settlers conflict in the 17th century is just the Indians starting shit and getting hit

the rest is them dying off of disease because of their puny immune systems

when europeans enter other european territories, its called an invasion. The recipient of the invasion decides to defend his land
So if europeans enter native territory, we cant retaliate?

Stop fucking lying. Europeans broke almost every treaty they had with Native Americans for land and then went on to slowly kill and eradicate them.

Disease. It killed natives by the millions.