The main difference between Spanish and English New World colonization is that the Spanish (usually) sought to reduce the Indians to de facto slavery and the English (usually) sought to get rid of them entirely so they could use the land. Which is worse is debatable.
And an interesting debate it would be.
I think I have mentioned this in another thread long ago, but the Spaniards saw the Indians as eminently human, if inferior. Blacks, not so much. Indians were de facto slaves, although officially manumitted (speaking only of the Hispaniola). In less than 200 years they were entirely wiped out, mostly because of disease, and a very low birth rate.
The Catholic church, to their credit, tried to save their mortal life (not only their souls) and came up with the brilliant idea of importing - the seemingly sturdier - African slaves.
Many Spaniards married Taino wives (converted, obviously), marrying black slaves was unheard of. However, they did boink the slaves with gusto (I, and 80% of the Dominican population are living proof of that), and their children were not considered, nor treated, as slaves themselves. In that regard the Spaniards, horny dogs that they were, were a lot more open than the English.
The reason why treatment of the local, non-Spanish population, was different, I my estimation, is that the islands were never the final destination for entrepreneurial Spaniards, mostly a short stop towards the land and gold-rich mainland. Nobody brought their wives, so they had to make do with what they found here.
The history of the conquest is vastly different in the Spanish Caribbean from the mainland, and I wonder if the attitudes aren’t different between us islanders and the mainland Latinos. We don’t seem to resent the Spanish so much.
The Spaniards were vastly outnumbered in there, and the mainland societies were vastly more organized and advanced than in the islands. The conquistadors ‘had’ to kill as many as they could so they wouldn’t be overtaken themselves. Luckily for them the locals couldn’t be arsed to join against the Spanish enemy.
So first it’s deliberate, then motive doesn’t matter, but now we’re back to deliberate? Nevermind, I’m sure you’ll just keep flip-flopping until the renewed novelty of another man-weasel learning to type wears off for me, which is now.
You mean where the Pequots got outmaneuvered politically and militarily and got destroyed? Where are your tears for the Averni? For Carthage? Did someone “practice” “extermination” on them too? Or is the suffering of their helpless somehow made less with time and distance? Are they undeserving of your noble and solemn remembrance? Or are they just too remote to pluck the fickle heartstrings of American white guilt pretension?
Spare me. Shit happens in wars over dirt, and nothing happened in the Northeast that hasn’t happened before when two sufficiently different groups of people start trying to occupy the same geographical space. Using words like extermination, and throwing around implications of genocide, is the mark of a completely self-impressed douchebag. The world already has one Ward Churchill, thanks anyway.
Hmmm… I suppose I could have used the phrase “effected regional depopulation, largely through native demographic collapse and English/British in-migration, combined with the sporadic usage of civilian massacres and forced native out-migration”, but inspired by a negative example in this very thread, I instead went with a terser, though less precise, phrasing in order to be brief.
As to the question of motive, I have noted above, and in several other posts in this thread, that I understand a dramatically increased death rate, caused primarily by exposure to Old World pathogens, in combination with a greatly reduced birth rate, attributable largely to general societal collapse, to have been the primary killers of Native Americans in the colonial period. I have also stated that I didn’t think the English were exceptionally bad in this respect.
Yes. Don’t care. Don’t care. Yes, Julius Caesar and Scipio Aemilianus, respectively. Yes. No. Can’t answer as I’m not white enough (my father was born in Bihar) for white guilt.
Fully agreed.
MOO!
Outstanding! Bravo. I drink tonight in your honor, good sir! 
Not much, anyway. So far.
Just to jog the memories of the longer-term members here: Collounsbury used to routinely post here drunk. Even though he had actual deep insights and personal knowledge to offer on the subjects he wrote about, he still eventually had to be forcibly removed.
Red, you just post drunk.
Hey! Doesn’t bother anybody that you post wearing women’s underwear! Have a little tolerance, big guy!
I wouldn’t say that- I hear Carol Stream wants her panties back (I believe she said ** Elvis** could keep the bra)
That’s going to give me nightmares. Thanks.
Doesn’t she think Elvis is up to keeping them twisty enough?
Despite my best efforts, you have consistently outshined me. I would even venture to say that you are the Tiger Woods of consensus-driven asswipedom: when you are around, you utterly dominate any competition. Even with a broken leg, you emerge victorious in the great race to ignominy.
Wait. Tiger Woods wears women’s underwear? Shit, that gets out, the whole damn PGA will be wearing panties.
This would be an improvement on what the PGA wears today. Sadly, their complete inadequacy of style is not actually Elvis’ fault.
Can’t wait to see the look on the old man’s face when he finds out. Yeah, I’m evil.
:::kicks sand:::
I just knew I shouldn’t have installed that breathalyzer on my monitor.
Oh well…guess it beats the reek of used tampons coming off of yours.
:::shrug:::
This sounds like one of Woody Allen’s dream dates that went horribly wrong.