6 ms·

I always find it very amusing that the Spanish government has the guts to show up and say "hey, guys, so, we actually stole that so can we please have it back?"

I always find it very amusing that the Spanish government has the guts to show up and say "hey, guys, so, we actually stole that so can we please have it back?" Looting the whole continent for centuries was not enough. They want more, of course

manuelabeledo 4y ago
Technically speaking, they didn’t steal anything since they claimed the American territories as Spanish. I get what you are saying, but legality and morality are two very different things.
- chinathrow 4y ago
  > Technically speaking, they didn’t steal anything since they claimed the American territories as Spanish. Were there no indigenous people living there previously?
  - manuelabeledo 4y ago
    > Were there no indigenous people living there previously? There were. But the de facto successor to the indigenous governments was the Spanish crown. And the ship sank during Spanish rule. Spain is not going to claim a galleon loaded with goods taken from the Colombian territories _before_ the 1500s or _after_ 1810.
    - chinathrow 4y ago
      > There were. But the de facto successor to the indigenous governments was the Spanish crown. And the ship sank during Spanish rule. Why would that make the "rule" morally fine?
      - manuelabeledo 4y ago
        > Why would that make the "rule" morally fine? It doesn't, but that doesn't really matter. There are many legal things that are immoral.
        pdabbadabba 4y ago
        It is up to us, the people living today, to decide whether Spanish governance at the time was legally legitimate and, therefore, whether the Spanish laws in force at the time should apply. We do not have to accept the Spanish colonial legacy just because the Spanish colonizers claimed to be legitimate.
        manuelabeledo 4y ago
        You cannot back up on laws, unless you are willing to withdraw from all the current international treaties altogether. Right now, Spain does have a claim on the ship.
        chinathrow 4y ago
        > Right now, Spain does have a claim on the ship. A claim yes, a moral one? Not sure. A legal one? Also not sure.
  - mc32 4y ago
    There were and they overtook and conquered others there before them, the Spanish came after and finally a nation (half the continent excluding Brazil) declared its independence and became a new political entity.
- dotancohen 4y ago
  > Technically speaking, they didn’t steal anything since they claimed the American territories as Spanish. Russia claims Crimea as Russian.
  - manuelabeledo 4y ago
    Russia didn't depose the Ukrainian government. Also, current affairs happen in a much more different legal framework as the ones 300 years ago.
    - dotancohen 4y ago
      When would you say that the legal framework flipped to the modern sense, from the sense used 300 years ago? Actually interested, not a troll question.
      - manuelabeledo 4y ago
        I don't think there is an universal international legal framework, but I would say that, if we take international treaties as bindings between nations, then we should be looking at the late 1800s through the mid 1900s, culminating with the United Nations. But of course, there are specific international treaties way older than that.
        dotancohen 4y ago
        I see, thanks. If anyone feels that there is a specific document that would define the modern interpretation, I'm actually very interested.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        InitialLastName 4y ago
        There's a sense where the growth of the "universal international legal framework" is more temporal than geographic, i.e. the application of principles of Westphalian Sovereignty to a wider area of the earth (frequently preceded by the new areas' incorporation into European colonial empires at the expense of indigenous "non-Westphalian" governments). When it came to their European colleagues, 18th-century Spain was perfectly happy to follow international relations principles that we would recognize today. Their conquest of Central and South America was predicated on the Treaty of Tordesillas, in which they and the Portuguese agreed to some lines on a map (with the Pope's help) and went to play "loot the locals".
- mongrelion 4y ago
  > they claimed the American territories as Spanish Against the will of all the natives living in the territory. You can't just show up to a house and claim that it's yours and simply take everything out of it and then take it somewhere else and claim that technically you didn't steal anything because you first claimed it yours lol.
  - Workaccount2 4y ago
    When there is no police force (like on the global stage) ownership is determined entirely by what you can protect. Nobody likes this, but there is no alternative.
    - barelysapient 4y ago
      It still works this way today: For example Russia <> Ukraine, Russia <> Georgia, China <> Tibet, USA <> Philippines, etc.
  - User23 4y ago
    Depends on the natives. Plenty were happy to have the Spaniards as overlords instead of the frankly comically evil Aztecs.
    - barelysapient 4y ago
      I'd love you back up this claim. There's always collaborators when the alternative is death. Or a bribe. That doesn't mean people were happy about. My personal experience after visiting many of the former Spanish territories in Central and South America is that these countries do not fondly remember the las conquistadories--who pillaged, raped and slaughtered their way across the continent while proselytizing Christianity. Many of the people I spoke with lay their countries poverty directly at the feet of Spain and American corporations -- who collectively pillaged their country's natural resources and humiliated indigenous people for over 200 years. This is why Colombia just elected Petro--who's promised to end the looting of Colombia's natural resources, among other things.
- pdabbadabba 4y ago
  > Technically speaking, they didn’t steal anything since they claimed the American territories as Spanish. I don't see any technical fact of the matter here. These legalistic claims may have been true in the eyes of the Spanish of the time. But the rest of us are free to reject this worldview and, thus, the claims of legality. Spanish law may say that 1) Spanish law applied in these territories and 2) that they were allowed to take what they took. But none of us have to credit these assertions. We are free to conclude that these assertions of sovereignty were illegitimate and that Spanish law is, therefore, irrelevant.
  - manuelabeledo 4y ago
    > Spanish law may say... This is not about Spanish law, but international maritime law. The ship is Spanish and departed from Spanish territories at the time, thus they have a claim over it. > We are free to conclude that these assertions of sovereignty were illegitimate and that Spanish law is, therefore, irrelevant. This is a bit anarchistic. In your scenario, _any_ country may be free from following international treaties and laws, thus why would anyone follow them in the first place?
    - pdabbadabba 4y ago
      > This is not about Spanish law, but international maritime law. This is about your original assertion that "they didn’t steal anything." And the answer to that depends on whatever the law was in the place where the supposed theft occurred. Spain would presumably take the position that this would be Spanish territorial law. But that merely begs the question, since the whole issue is whether Spanish colonial rule was legitimate. > This is a bit anarchistic. That's a bit ironic. One might say that it was Spain's colonization that was anarchistic, since it was done in obvious disregard of the laws and customs of the people living on that land at the time. Maybe today they are just dealing with the consequences. In any case, I would imagine that the matter would be resolved by some sort of tribunal with competent jurisdiction. If they were to conclude that Spain's claim to the treasure were illegitimate because it was ill-gotten, that's hardly anarchism. Of course, I'm not predicting that this will actually occur. In fact, I'm not sure I'm prepared to argue that it should occur. I'm merely pointing out that, if the assertion is "the Spanish stole," then arguing that they didn't, because the Spanish had colonized the country and claimed it as their territory, isn't very helpful, and perhaps missing the point. The person who thinks "the Spanish stole" would clearly also consider these unilateral Spanish proclamations to be illegitimate--and it's not obvious to me why they would be wrong. > any_ country may be free from following international treaties and laws An exaggeration, surely. The argument I'm making is specific to situations where today's legal rights directly depend on the legitimacy of historical territorial claims.
miki_tyler 4y ago
If you find this amusing maybe you should spend some time at the British Museum. Like it or not they have the law on their side.
- causi 4y ago
  Law that, like being looted, Colombia never agreed to.
  - manuelabeledo 4y ago
    Colombia didn’t exist as a country when the ship sank. Also, international maritime law is, well, international. Unless Colombia decides that they would withdraw from the UN and international courts, of course it will apply to them.
    - bigDinosaur 4y ago
      So if I steal something from a country, with my own ship, and it sinks, the country from which I've stolen from automatically loses all rights to recovery of the stolen goods?
      - manuelabeledo 4y ago
        It depends. Does that country exist? Colombia was under the Spanish crown rule between 1525 and 1810, thus there was not a country there, at least not legally.
      - djohnston 4y ago
        You're implying there was a Colombian gov't that owned it to begin with. But there wasn't a Colombia.
    - lentil_soup 4y ago
      The article does say Colombia hasn't actually signed that international treaty, so it seems it doesn't apply to them
- 4y ago
mc32 4y ago
I think this argument is unfounded. It’s akin to some day Northern California splitting from California and then claiming socal “stole it’s water” or similar argument. There were some thefts before mining started taking place, but most of the gold was mined by and for the crown. Also, this is Columbia making the claim, not the locale where the mines existed.

manuelabeledo 4y ago

Technically speaking, they didn’t steal anything since they claimed the American territories as Spanish. I get what you are saying, but legality and morality are two very different things.

chinathrow 4y ago
> Technically speaking, they didn’t steal anything since they claimed the American territories as Spanish. Were there no indigenous people living there previously?
- manuelabeledo 4y ago
  > Were there no indigenous people living there previously? There were. But the de facto successor to the indigenous governments was the Spanish crown. And the ship sank during Spanish rule. Spain is not going to claim a galleon loaded with goods taken from the Colombian territories _before_ the 1500s or _after_ 1810.
  - chinathrow 4y ago
    > There were. But the de facto successor to the indigenous governments was the Spanish crown. And the ship sank during Spanish rule. Why would that make the "rule" morally fine?
    - manuelabeledo 4y ago
      > Why would that make the "rule" morally fine? It doesn't, but that doesn't really matter. There are many legal things that are immoral.
      - pdabbadabba 4y ago
        It is up to us, the people living today, to decide whether Spanish governance at the time was legally legitimate and, therefore, whether the Spanish laws in force at the time should apply. We do not have to accept the Spanish colonial legacy just because the Spanish colonizers claimed to be legitimate.
        manuelabeledo 4y ago
        You cannot back up on laws, unless you are willing to withdraw from all the current international treaties altogether. Right now, Spain does have a claim on the ship.
        chinathrow 4y ago
        > Right now, Spain does have a claim on the ship. A claim yes, a moral one? Not sure. A legal one? Also not sure.
- mc32 4y ago
  There were and they overtook and conquered others there before them, the Spanish came after and finally a nation (half the continent excluding Brazil) declared its independence and became a new political entity.
dotancohen 4y ago
> Technically speaking, they didn’t steal anything since they claimed the American territories as Spanish. Russia claims Crimea as Russian.
- manuelabeledo 4y ago
  Russia didn't depose the Ukrainian government. Also, current affairs happen in a much more different legal framework as the ones 300 years ago.
  - dotancohen 4y ago
    When would you say that the legal framework flipped to the modern sense, from the sense used 300 years ago? Actually interested, not a troll question.
    - manuelabeledo 4y ago
      I don't think there is an universal international legal framework, but I would say that, if we take international treaties as bindings between nations, then we should be looking at the late 1800s through the mid 1900s, culminating with the United Nations. But of course, there are specific international treaties way older than that.
      - dotancohen 4y ago
        I see, thanks. If anyone feels that there is a specific document that would define the modern interpretation, I'm actually very interested.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - InitialLastName 4y ago
        There's a sense where the growth of the "universal international legal framework" is more temporal than geographic, i.e. the application of principles of Westphalian Sovereignty to a wider area of the earth (frequently preceded by the new areas' incorporation into European colonial empires at the expense of indigenous "non-Westphalian" governments). When it came to their European colleagues, 18th-century Spain was perfectly happy to follow international relations principles that we would recognize today. Their conquest of Central and South America was predicated on the Treaty of Tordesillas, in which they and the Portuguese agreed to some lines on a map (with the Pope's help) and went to play "loot the locals".
mongrelion 4y ago
> they claimed the American territories as Spanish Against the will of all the natives living in the territory. You can't just show up to a house and claim that it's yours and simply take everything out of it and then take it somewhere else and claim that technically you didn't steal anything because you first claimed it yours lol.
- Workaccount2 4y ago
  When there is no police force (like on the global stage) ownership is determined entirely by what you can protect. Nobody likes this, but there is no alternative.
  - barelysapient 4y ago
    It still works this way today: For example Russia <> Ukraine, Russia <> Georgia, China <> Tibet, USA <> Philippines, etc.
- User23 4y ago
  Depends on the natives. Plenty were happy to have the Spaniards as overlords instead of the frankly comically evil Aztecs.
  - barelysapient 4y ago
    I'd love you back up this claim. There's always collaborators when the alternative is death. Or a bribe. That doesn't mean people were happy about. My personal experience after visiting many of the former Spanish territories in Central and South America is that these countries do not fondly remember the las conquistadories--who pillaged, raped and slaughtered their way across the continent while proselytizing Christianity. Many of the people I spoke with lay their countries poverty directly at the feet of Spain and American corporations -- who collectively pillaged their country's natural resources and humiliated indigenous people for over 200 years. This is why Colombia just elected Petro--who's promised to end the looting of Colombia's natural resources, among other things.
pdabbadabba 4y ago
> Technically speaking, they didn’t steal anything since they claimed the American territories as Spanish. I don't see any technical fact of the matter here. These legalistic claims may have been true in the eyes of the Spanish of the time. But the rest of us are free to reject this worldview and, thus, the claims of legality. Spanish law may say that 1) Spanish law applied in these territories and 2) that they were allowed to take what they took. But none of us have to credit these assertions. We are free to conclude that these assertions of sovereignty were illegitimate and that Spanish law is, therefore, irrelevant.
- manuelabeledo 4y ago
  > Spanish law may say... This is not about Spanish law, but international maritime law. The ship is Spanish and departed from Spanish territories at the time, thus they have a claim over it. > We are free to conclude that these assertions of sovereignty were illegitimate and that Spanish law is, therefore, irrelevant. This is a bit anarchistic. In your scenario, _any_ country may be free from following international treaties and laws, thus why would anyone follow them in the first place?
  - pdabbadabba 4y ago
    > This is not about Spanish law, but international maritime law. This is about your original assertion that "they didn’t steal anything." And the answer to that depends on whatever the law was in the place where the supposed theft occurred. Spain would presumably take the position that this would be Spanish territorial law. But that merely begs the question, since the whole issue is whether Spanish colonial rule was legitimate. > This is a bit anarchistic. That's a bit ironic. One might say that it was Spain's colonization that was anarchistic, since it was done in obvious disregard of the laws and customs of the people living on that land at the time. Maybe today they are just dealing with the consequences. In any case, I would imagine that the matter would be resolved by some sort of tribunal with competent jurisdiction. If they were to conclude that Spain's claim to the treasure were illegitimate because it was ill-gotten, that's hardly anarchism. Of course, I'm not predicting that this will actually occur. In fact, I'm not sure I'm prepared to argue that it should occur. I'm merely pointing out that, if the assertion is "the Spanish stole," then arguing that they didn't, because the Spanish had colonized the country and claimed it as their territory, isn't very helpful, and perhaps missing the point. The person who thinks "the Spanish stole" would clearly also consider these unilateral Spanish proclamations to be illegitimate--and it's not obvious to me why they would be wrong. > any_ country may be free from following international treaties and laws An exaggeration, surely. The argument I'm making is specific to situations where today's legal rights directly depend on the legitimacy of historical territorial claims.

miki_tyler 4y ago

If you find this amusing maybe you should spend some time at the British Museum. Like it or not they have the law on their side.

causi 4y ago
Law that, like being looted, Colombia never agreed to.
- manuelabeledo 4y ago
  Colombia didn’t exist as a country when the ship sank. Also, international maritime law is, well, international. Unless Colombia decides that they would withdraw from the UN and international courts, of course it will apply to them.
  - bigDinosaur 4y ago
    So if I steal something from a country, with my own ship, and it sinks, the country from which I've stolen from automatically loses all rights to recovery of the stolen goods?
    - manuelabeledo 4y ago
      It depends. Does that country exist? Colombia was under the Spanish crown rule between 1525 and 1810, thus there was not a country there, at least not legally.
    - djohnston 4y ago
      You're implying there was a Colombian gov't that owned it to begin with. But there wasn't a Colombia.
  - lentil_soup 4y ago
    The article does say Colombia hasn't actually signed that international treaty, so it seems it doesn't apply to them
4y ago

mc32 4y ago

I think this argument is unfounded. It’s akin to some day Northern California splitting from California and then claiming socal “stole it’s water” or similar argument. There were some thefts before mining started taking place, but most of the gold was mined by and for the crown. Also, this is Columbia making the claim, not the locale where the mines existed.