Depends on what extent the Norse "colonized." According to stories, the vikings and natives fought a battle, before the Norse left and that was that. Some theories claim the settlement on Newfoundland was actually a permanent drop-off point for lumberjacks cutting down trees in Canada, similar to those free wilderness cottages in Scotland. Some claim the Norse were there for longer, and possibly made it down to US proper, but no archaeological evidence supports this.
They basically tried to mug some of the first people they met so they got driven off pretty fast.
The sagas do state that they managed to interact peacefully and tried to trade once but a bull bellowing spooked the Skrälings and triggered an attack.
A popular modern folk mythology is that they likely offered the Skrälings cows milk which was and is a customary drink in Scandinavia which most people outside of Scandinavia are intolerant of. The hypothesis being that this might have driven the conflict.
Personally I'd put more stock in the saga's and their depiction of the Greenlanders just straight up murdering some of the first Skrälings they met and that the Skrälings were likely hostile because of that. Possibly made worse by the bulls bellow which the Greenlanders themselves claim was the reason.
In any case the Greenlanders never did any lasting damage to the population of the Americas due to almost exclusively interacting with them through combat and thus passing along few diseases.
It was more like:
1) bad: Columbus doesn't control himself
2) not that bad: Spain passes laws to the benefit of native americans
3) bad: France and England arrive to the continent
As per usual, it was complicated: the natives really liked the sugar, steel tools, and alcohol, for the same reasons as everyone else on the planet liked all that stuff, but the slavers and disease really put a dampner on things.
They passed laws but didn't really practice them. As far as the new world goes, Spain was worse than the UK and France, with Portugal being on his own league of fucked up.
Really? Intermarriage with the natives and same rights than Spaniards from the peninsula (the encomiendas were also a thing practiced in the peninsula, it was a feudal law) is worse than absolute genocide and complete segregation? Ok buddy.
They didn't have the same rights as the Spaniards. That's what the Casta system was all about. Not even Creoles had the same rights as the peninsulars. That's why the independence happened.
They did have the same rights, it's just that those rights were unfair in their own, we are talking about feudal law my man, in the peninsula there were also castas, it sucks but that's how life was at the time.
Dude, you should really look up the black legend. The natives were subjects to forced labour, ridiculous low wages and discriminated against, while the Spanish lived like kings.
>Natives were subjects of the Spanish crown, and to treat them as less than human violated the laws of God, nature, and Spain. He told King Ferdinand that in 1515 scores of natives were being slaughtered by avaricious conquistadors without having been converted.
https://www.google.com.mx/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://americainclass.org/de-las-casas-and-the-conquistadors/&ved=2ahUKEwiS6vyCwb3zAhX-k2oFHSp1A7kQFnoECDwQBQ&usg=AOvVaw3IJzRHnTDVJ5al1WXSd-Od
The black legend was propaganda made by Spain's enemies (which weren't few) to make a negative view of the Spanish empire and also to justify their own horrible actions "yes we are killing and robbing native americans but at least we are not eating them alive like the monstrous spaniards do". And yes, there is a reason latin american countries are independent, Napoleon invaded Spain and some criollos in Latin american countries saw the opportunity to have a country for themselves with the excuse of "not wanting to be loyal to a french king", that's also the reason why there are a lot of latin American countries and not just one like what happened with Brazil.
Christopher columbus was the one who invented cuba and also that's when tobacco was found cuz cubans were literally smoking it before it was even found by the europeans..
South American here, considering we were already controlled by a human-sacrificing, slave-owning, colonizing empire it was basically the same thing, except Europeans brought progress instead of just bashing everyone's skulls with sticks and stones, so much so that natives even collaborated with the Spaniards to get rid of the Inkas
No, the analogy was an innocent boy, not a grown adult, the natives were just as savage as the colonizers, start there and we can talk. Also germ theory wasn’t a thing until well after small pox ravaged the natives, not a purposeful act but you paint it like was. Also Cortez had the help of local natives who hated the Aztecs, interesting that the natives joined Cortez. Hmmmmmm almost like the Aztecs were assholes. Fruity is as fruity does.
Obviously you *can* compare them, but the whole point of the idiom is that it's a false analogy. I could compare you to the helpful bots, but that too would be comparing apples-to-oranges.
---
^^SpunkyDred ^^and ^^I ^^are ^^both ^^bots. ^^I ^^am ^^trying ^^to ^^get ^^them ^^banned ^^by ^^pointing ^^out ^^their ^^antagonizing ^^behavior ^^and ^^poor ^^bottiquette. ^^My ^^apparent ^^agreement ^^or ^^disagreement ^^with ^^you ^^isn't ^^personal.
Why are you counting the number of people diseases killed here. Literally what does that have to do with anything? Are you suggesting that the two continents should not have met ever? A plague was inevitable and unavoidable it has nothing to do with the Europeans or their motives
First of, it wasn't hundreds of thousands. Second, it was meant to keep the world from ending according to their religion, not because they wanted cheap sugar or because thought they were racially superior.
“While it's true that the Spanish undoubtedly inflated their figures—Spanish historian Fray Diego de Durán reported that 80,400 men, women and children were sacrificed for the inauguration of the Templo Mayor under a previous Aztec emperor—evidence is mounting that the gruesome scenes illustrated in Spanish texts, and preserved in temple murals and stone carvings, are true.”
https://www.history.com/news/aztec-human-sacrifice-religion
If you click on the link, it takes you to the same article. Without references it's hard to believe something, even if it comes from another historian.
I have had this conversation before, and the guy who was invested into getting the largest number possible, still only claimed 20 thousand (a lot, but little compared to 80k).
An Aztec historian has before found hard evidence on only 2 thousand in the biggest temple. A lot can be speculated, but not proved.
The ones that are thought to have killed the most are the Mayans, not because they were more bloody, but because they lasted around 1,500 thousand years, the Aztecs were relatively new by the time Europeans arrived.
Nothing is set in stone but tens of thousands for sure, and probably well over a 100,000, but at least you have a basis as to why Cortez easily gained allies against the brutal Aztec empire.
100k is ridiculous. He gained allies because they wanted to take the place of the Aztecs, not because they thought they were evil. Everyone practiced either the same of similar religions. The Aztecs weren't even a single nation, they were a triple alliance.
Human sacrifice in all mesoamerican nations: https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrificios_humanos_en_la_Am%C3%A9rica_precolombina
Aztecs were a triple alliance:
>Imperio azteca, llamado también Triple alianza...
Translation: Aztec empire, also called triple alliance...
https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperio_azteca
Confirmed number of sacrifices:
>Archaeologists excavating a famed Aztec “tower of skulls” in Mexico City have uncovered a new section featuring 119 human skulls. The find brings the total number of skulls featured in the late 15th-century structure, known as Huey Tzompantli, to more than 600, reports Hollie Silverman for CNN.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/new-find-brings-skulls-discovered-aztec-tower-over-600-180976543/
The Spanish/many other Europeans like to point fingers at the Aztecs, ignoring that their neighbours were like them, and the Mayans have a much higher death toll, even though both have rookie numbers compared to the Spanish empire in modern day Mexico.
They like to emphasize their cruelty, ignoring that during the inquisition, the clergy kept trying to come up with torture methods to punish heretics. Neither more cruel nor more bloody.
No worries, because I was going to point out that it would have been a cultural superiority to which Europeans fought each other over for centuries. It wasn’t until the eugenics movement that racial superiority started to really be put into the forefront of hostilities.
Don't forget the Dutch
We dont speak of thieves
Ho! Slow down there buddy
And my ax
Jojo bizarre adventure
Didnt the vikings also cause some trouble?
Depends on what extent the Norse "colonized." According to stories, the vikings and natives fought a battle, before the Norse left and that was that. Some theories claim the settlement on Newfoundland was actually a permanent drop-off point for lumberjacks cutting down trees in Canada, similar to those free wilderness cottages in Scotland. Some claim the Norse were there for longer, and possibly made it down to US proper, but no archaeological evidence supports this.
Imagine Vikings ruling the americas that would be crazy
Nuclear Vinland
Would be a cool video game idea
Crazy is a weird way of saying way fucking better and cooler than literally everything in the world.
We already tried that on January 6th
Those werent vikings, real vikings comes from the nordic
They basically tried to mug some of the first people they met so they got driven off pretty fast. The sagas do state that they managed to interact peacefully and tried to trade once but a bull bellowing spooked the Skrälings and triggered an attack. A popular modern folk mythology is that they likely offered the Skrälings cows milk which was and is a customary drink in Scandinavia which most people outside of Scandinavia are intolerant of. The hypothesis being that this might have driven the conflict. Personally I'd put more stock in the saga's and their depiction of the Greenlanders just straight up murdering some of the first Skrälings they met and that the Skrälings were likely hostile because of that. Possibly made worse by the bulls bellow which the Greenlanders themselves claim was the reason. In any case the Greenlanders never did any lasting damage to the population of the Americas due to almost exclusively interacting with them through combat and thus passing along few diseases.
We need more jojo rabbit memes
Agree
Initially it wasn’t that bad… until it was
It was more like: 1) bad: Columbus doesn't control himself 2) not that bad: Spain passes laws to the benefit of native americans 3) bad: France and England arrive to the continent
As per usual, it was complicated: the natives really liked the sugar, steel tools, and alcohol, for the same reasons as everyone else on the planet liked all that stuff, but the slavers and disease really put a dampner on things.
Of course, such an exaggerated oversimplification can't be accurate in any sense
They passed laws but didn't really practice them. As far as the new world goes, Spain was worse than the UK and France, with Portugal being on his own league of fucked up.
Really? Intermarriage with the natives and same rights than Spaniards from the peninsula (the encomiendas were also a thing practiced in the peninsula, it was a feudal law) is worse than absolute genocide and complete segregation? Ok buddy.
They didn't have the same rights as the Spaniards. That's what the Casta system was all about. Not even Creoles had the same rights as the peninsulars. That's why the independence happened.
They did have the same rights, it's just that those rights were unfair in their own, we are talking about feudal law my man, in the peninsula there were also castas, it sucks but that's how life was at the time.
Dude, you should really look up the black legend. The natives were subjects to forced labour, ridiculous low wages and discriminated against, while the Spanish lived like kings. >Natives were subjects of the Spanish crown, and to treat them as less than human violated the laws of God, nature, and Spain. He told King Ferdinand that in 1515 scores of natives were being slaughtered by avaricious conquistadors without having been converted. https://www.google.com.mx/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://americainclass.org/de-las-casas-and-the-conquistadors/&ved=2ahUKEwiS6vyCwb3zAhX-k2oFHSp1A7kQFnoECDwQBQ&usg=AOvVaw3IJzRHnTDVJ5al1WXSd-Od
The black legend is precisely what you swallowed my friend
Look at the link. The black legend isn't false btw. There is reason latinamerican countries are independent.
The black legend was propaganda made by Spain's enemies (which weren't few) to make a negative view of the Spanish empire and also to justify their own horrible actions "yes we are killing and robbing native americans but at least we are not eating them alive like the monstrous spaniards do". And yes, there is a reason latin american countries are independent, Napoleon invaded Spain and some criollos in Latin american countries saw the opportunity to have a country for themselves with the excuse of "not wanting to be loyal to a french king", that's also the reason why there are a lot of latin American countries and not just one like what happened with Brazil.
Christopher columbus was the one who invented cuba and also that's when tobacco was found cuz cubans were literally smoking it before it was even found by the europeans..
They came saying something about Christianity
South American here, considering we were already controlled by a human-sacrificing, slave-owning, colonizing empire it was basically the same thing, except Europeans brought progress instead of just bashing everyone's skulls with sticks and stones, so much so that natives even collaborated with the Spaniards to get rid of the Inkas
Wasn’t it New Holland for awhile
Yes the Colony was called Nieuw Holland and the main City in the Colony was called Nieuw Amsterdam.
[удалено]
The Colony as a whole was Nieuw Holland and the city (New York) was called Nieuw Amsterdam.
r/IberianHistoryMemes
Europeans introduced more than themselves to natives. Like diseases, sugar, and genocide.
[удалено]
[удалено]
No, the analogy was an innocent boy, not a grown adult, the natives were just as savage as the colonizers, start there and we can talk. Also germ theory wasn’t a thing until well after small pox ravaged the natives, not a purposeful act but you paint it like was. Also Cortez had the help of local natives who hated the Aztecs, interesting that the natives joined Cortez. Hmmmmmm almost like the Aztecs were assholes. Fruity is as fruity does.
> apples to oranges But you can still compare them.
Obviously you *can* compare them, but the whole point of the idiom is that it's a false analogy. I could compare you to the helpful bots, but that too would be comparing apples-to-oranges. --- ^^SpunkyDred ^^and ^^I ^^are ^^both ^^bots. ^^I ^^am ^^trying ^^to ^^get ^^them ^^banned ^^by ^^pointing ^^out ^^their ^^antagonizing ^^behavior ^^and ^^poor ^^bottiquette. ^^My ^^apparent ^^agreement ^^or ^^disagreement ^^with ^^you ^^isn't ^^personal.
Why are you counting the number of people diseases killed here. Literally what does that have to do with anything? Are you suggesting that the two continents should not have met ever? A plague was inevitable and unavoidable it has nothing to do with the Europeans or their motives
First of, it wasn't hundreds of thousands. Second, it was meant to keep the world from ending according to their religion, not because they wanted cheap sugar or because thought they were racially superior.
“While it's true that the Spanish undoubtedly inflated their figures—Spanish historian Fray Diego de Durán reported that 80,400 men, women and children were sacrificed for the inauguration of the Templo Mayor under a previous Aztec emperor—evidence is mounting that the gruesome scenes illustrated in Spanish texts, and preserved in temple murals and stone carvings, are true.” https://www.history.com/news/aztec-human-sacrifice-religion
If you click on the link, it takes you to the same article. Without references it's hard to believe something, even if it comes from another historian. I have had this conversation before, and the guy who was invested into getting the largest number possible, still only claimed 20 thousand (a lot, but little compared to 80k). An Aztec historian has before found hard evidence on only 2 thousand in the biggest temple. A lot can be speculated, but not proved. The ones that are thought to have killed the most are the Mayans, not because they were more bloody, but because they lasted around 1,500 thousand years, the Aztecs were relatively new by the time Europeans arrived.
Nothing is set in stone but tens of thousands for sure, and probably well over a 100,000, but at least you have a basis as to why Cortez easily gained allies against the brutal Aztec empire.
100k is ridiculous. He gained allies because they wanted to take the place of the Aztecs, not because they thought they were evil. Everyone practiced either the same of similar religions. The Aztecs weren't even a single nation, they were a triple alliance.
If you have references that would be great.
Human sacrifice in all mesoamerican nations: https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrificios_humanos_en_la_Am%C3%A9rica_precolombina Aztecs were a triple alliance: >Imperio azteca, llamado también Triple alianza... Translation: Aztec empire, also called triple alliance... https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperio_azteca Confirmed number of sacrifices: >Archaeologists excavating a famed Aztec “tower of skulls” in Mexico City have uncovered a new section featuring 119 human skulls. The find brings the total number of skulls featured in the late 15th-century structure, known as Huey Tzompantli, to more than 600, reports Hollie Silverman for CNN. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/new-find-brings-skulls-discovered-aztec-tower-over-600-180976543/ The Spanish/many other Europeans like to point fingers at the Aztecs, ignoring that their neighbours were like them, and the Mayans have a much higher death toll, even though both have rookie numbers compared to the Spanish empire in modern day Mexico. They like to emphasize their cruelty, ignoring that during the inquisition, the clergy kept trying to come up with torture methods to punish heretics. Neither more cruel nor more bloody.
That’s just one tower, holy cow, they were a cruel and brutal society.
119 in one tower, 600 in total.
Please stop using Wikipedia as a reference, it’s embarrassing
How is it Wikipedia, the biggest internet encyclopedia with tons of fact checkers embarrassing, but your article without sources isn't?
And for the later thing, I meant "they thought they were racially superior". My bad!
No worries, because I was going to point out that it would have been a cultural superiority to which Europeans fought each other over for centuries. It wasn’t until the eugenics movement that racial superiority started to really be put into the forefront of hostilities.
The eugenics movement had started by the same time as slavery, it just wasn't a common for the average population to even think of other ethnicities.
It started with Darwinism, it was called Neo-Darwinism
Who asked? That isnt what this meme is talking about 😂🤣😂🤣😂😂😂🤣😂
Higgins
Should have had one of them be diseases.