4 ms·

Conquistadores: The Age of Heroes (Part I)

38 points by jger15 4y ago

icegreentea2 4y ago
In case it's not entirely clear, Part II is already out: https://kvetch.substack.com/p/conquistadores-the-age-of-heroes-f5e https://kvetch.substack.com/p/conquistadores-the-age-of-hero...
Animats 4y ago
Ah, the good old days when countries could be imperialist and unashamed. Three centuries without a war or major rebellion. That's a good record. Take up the White Man's burden— Send forth the best ye breed— Go bind your sons to exile To serve your captives' need; To wait in heavy harness On fluttered folk and wild— Your new-caught, sullen peoples, Half devil and half child. -- Kipling, 1899
- _8j50 4y ago
  Colonization or invading a country for its resources are hardly things europe has had a monopoly over. Perhaps the racist treatment of conquered nations is something especially notable. Russia is trying to colonise ukraine now. Hitler colonizred a bunch of european countries too but the racial undertone with colonialism is it only applies to when the invaded are non-europeans. My contention is that while I don't disagree about the invader being ashamed, the invaded/colonized need to also feel shame for being weak and failing to protect their country, culuture and people. Weakness is something to be ashamed of when it is a choice as opposed to a natural weakness. Even now stronger nations indirectly arm-twist weaker nations, instead of focusing on becoming strong at all costs, whether being an ally of the strong or a formidable foe, countries that fail to do that should be ashamed because it is shameful to endanger and allow the subjugation of your people.
  - skissane 4y ago
    > Colonization or invading a country for its resources are hardly things europe has had a monopoly over. China colonised Taiwan, displacing the indigenous Taiwanese, who are an Austronesian people, related to Filipinos, Indonesians, Malays, Melanesians, Micronesians, Polynesians – in fact, Taiwan is believed to be the Austronesian Urheimat, the historical origin of Austronesian language and culture. The earliest Chinese settlers arrived in the 13th century, although Chinese colonisation really took off after failed European colonisation attempts (by the Dutch and Spanish) in the 16th. Similarly, Yamato Japanese colonised Hokkaido and the northern parts of Honshu, displacing the indigenous Ainu. Even the rest of Japan appears to have been colonised by settlers from mainland East Asia in the first millennium BCE or earlier, who introduced an agrarian culture which displaced the hunter-gatherer cultures of Japanese prehistory. To say nothing of Japanese colonialism in Taiwan, Korea, Manchuria, China, and elsewhere between 1895 and 1945. However, many nowadays present colonialism as something essentially "European" – for example, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Colonialism [0] says "This entry uses the term colonialism to describe the process of European settlement, violent dispossession and political domination over the rest of the world, including the Americas, Australia, and parts of Africa and Asia" – leaving Chinese and Japanese colonialism out of the scope of its definition, and never grappling with its decision to do so. It seems to me to be – at the very least – rather narrow-minded. [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/colonialism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/colonialism/
    - Haga 4y ago
      [dead]
    - _8j50 4y ago
      Yes that's what I am saying. Europeans thought their civilization is superior and has a manifest destiny to colonize others, a lie that must be told to get the support of the masses when you do terrible things. Even in Africa or even native americans in north america invaded territory as a means to gain wealth and resources. Of course this makes none of it acceptable, especially in modern times where resources are so abundant. It is plain and simple organized theft and murder. These nations chose to be murderers,rapists and thieves. The fact that europe wasn't the first only geographical area does not change that. You can develop resources and trade with others but when thay doesn't work either you find some way to better your society or turn to evil. The US invading iraq for oil using spreading freedom as a cover is a replay of this ancient playbook. It's easy to say we will not do this as a nation anymore in a time of prosperity but but miss a few meals and then we will see what people think.
- adr1an 4y ago
  History is so fucked-up. Conquistadores were not so different to mercenaries. You can't call them heroes, that's ignorance/ bigotry. Sorry for the tone of my message, this whole thread triggers some anxiety. Please bear in mind you are talking about looting, genocide and slavery. I wouldn't blame the spanish crown, tho they were overlooking (at the least).
  - fakedang 4y ago
    Exactly. If we're calling conquistadores and condottieri "heroes", might as well call the same for Barbary Corsairs and Indian thuggees.

38 points by jger15 4y ago

In case it's not entirely clear, Part II is already out: https://kvetch.substack.com/p/conquistadores-the-age-of-heroes-f5e https://kvetch.substack.com/p/conquistadores-the-age-of-hero...

Animats 4y ago

Ah, the good old days when countries could be imperialist and unashamed. Three centuries without a war or major rebellion. That's a good record. Take up the White Man's burden— Send forth the best ye breed— Go bind your sons to exile To serve your captives' need; To wait in heavy harness On fluttered folk and wild— Your new-caught, sullen peoples, Half devil and half child. -- Kipling, 1899

_8j50 4y ago
Colonization or invading a country for its resources are hardly things europe has had a monopoly over. Perhaps the racist treatment of conquered nations is something especially notable. Russia is trying to colonise ukraine now. Hitler colonizred a bunch of european countries too but the racial undertone with colonialism is it only applies to when the invaded are non-europeans. My contention is that while I don't disagree about the invader being ashamed, the invaded/colonized need to also feel shame for being weak and failing to protect their country, culuture and people. Weakness is something to be ashamed of when it is a choice as opposed to a natural weakness. Even now stronger nations indirectly arm-twist weaker nations, instead of focusing on becoming strong at all costs, whether being an ally of the strong or a formidable foe, countries that fail to do that should be ashamed because it is shameful to endanger and allow the subjugation of your people.
- skissane 4y ago
  > Colonization or invading a country for its resources are hardly things europe has had a monopoly over. China colonised Taiwan, displacing the indigenous Taiwanese, who are an Austronesian people, related to Filipinos, Indonesians, Malays, Melanesians, Micronesians, Polynesians – in fact, Taiwan is believed to be the Austronesian Urheimat, the historical origin of Austronesian language and culture. The earliest Chinese settlers arrived in the 13th century, although Chinese colonisation really took off after failed European colonisation attempts (by the Dutch and Spanish) in the 16th. Similarly, Yamato Japanese colonised Hokkaido and the northern parts of Honshu, displacing the indigenous Ainu. Even the rest of Japan appears to have been colonised by settlers from mainland East Asia in the first millennium BCE or earlier, who introduced an agrarian culture which displaced the hunter-gatherer cultures of Japanese prehistory. To say nothing of Japanese colonialism in Taiwan, Korea, Manchuria, China, and elsewhere between 1895 and 1945. However, many nowadays present colonialism as something essentially "European" – for example, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Colonialism [0] says "This entry uses the term colonialism to describe the process of European settlement, violent dispossession and political domination over the rest of the world, including the Americas, Australia, and parts of Africa and Asia" – leaving Chinese and Japanese colonialism out of the scope of its definition, and never grappling with its decision to do so. It seems to me to be – at the very least – rather narrow-minded. [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/colonialism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/colonialism/
  - Haga 4y ago
    [dead]
  - _8j50 4y ago
    Yes that's what I am saying. Europeans thought their civilization is superior and has a manifest destiny to colonize others, a lie that must be told to get the support of the masses when you do terrible things. Even in Africa or even native americans in north america invaded territory as a means to gain wealth and resources. Of course this makes none of it acceptable, especially in modern times where resources are so abundant. It is plain and simple organized theft and murder. These nations chose to be murderers,rapists and thieves. The fact that europe wasn't the first only geographical area does not change that. You can develop resources and trade with others but when thay doesn't work either you find some way to better your society or turn to evil. The US invading iraq for oil using spreading freedom as a cover is a replay of this ancient playbook. It's easy to say we will not do this as a nation anymore in a time of prosperity but but miss a few meals and then we will see what people think.
adr1an 4y ago
History is so fucked-up. Conquistadores were not so different to mercenaries. You can't call them heroes, that's ignorance/ bigotry. Sorry for the tone of my message, this whole thread triggers some anxiety. Please bear in mind you are talking about looting, genocide and slavery. I wouldn't blame the spanish crown, tho they were overlooking (at the least).
- fakedang 4y ago
  Exactly. If we're calling conquistadores and condottieri "heroes", might as well call the same for Barbary Corsairs and Indian thuggees.