This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Material from Black legend was split to Black legend (Spain) on 21 November 2019 from this version. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Black legend. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 September 2019 and 24 January 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Darlynl.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
There are quite a few white-legendy aspects here, the idea that Spanish atrocities must only be talked about if we also mention atrocities by other countries at the same time runs through the whole article. I have removed some of the worst examples, false claims that only Spain had legal protections for native peoples, the use of the word "Excesses" which is a weasel word used to refer to war crimes committed by one's own side in a "just" war, the nonsensical claim that Spain was the first abolitionist state when it did not ban slavery until 1886. However, it really needs complete reconstruction, probably dividing into two clearly differentiated sections, one the early modern anti-Spanish propaganda in Northern Europe and one on the historiography of the supposed Black Legend. The first clearly exists, the second is mostly a Spanish perception of how the world sees it. Boynamedsue ( talk) 07:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
En este camino llegó hasta el extremo, único en la historia de los poderes coloniales, de promulgar una legislación para las Indias más avanzada y generosa que la misma legislación a que estaban sometidos, en España, los peninsulares.
Hi, I am not disputing that there was a humanitarian component to the intention of Spanish colonial laws, and that it was present as early as could reasonably be expected. The fact that there was extreme brutality at the same time, and that the process of conquest and incorporation into Spanish society involved "encomienda" that was little better than enslavement is also relevant when discussing this. However, the statement that was in the article that ONLY Spain protected indigenous populations is false. All colonial societies, even the Belgian Congo, had some formal legal protection of native populations.
As for the rest, I find it hard to see this as much more than a thin-skinned attitude. When the British talk about our witch burnings, our colonial genocides, or our religious executions, we do not feel the need to compare ourselves to another country. The Black Legend exists, primarily, in the Spanish self-image. -- Boynamedsue ( talk) 19:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I have removed the following references and added citation tag:
https://uvadoc.uva.es/bitstream/handle/10324/25577/TFG_F_2017_111.pdf;jsessionid=4160B5EF22CC5D86A6A18A1EFD779377?sequence=1 https://www.elconfidencial.com/alma-corazon-vida/2015-09-25/fue-mucho-peor-los-genocidios-de-los-ingleses-contra-nuestra-leyenda-negra_1037058/
Neither text supports the claim in the text, which is that non-Spaniards create special linguistic categories for Spanish colonial behaviour to differentiate it from the behaviour of their colonialists, specifically using conquistador as an example. I don't personally agree with the argument, as for me conquistadors did have certain characteristics particular to their environment, culture and period, but I think it is an interesting point that would merit inclusion if it could be sourced. Unfortunately there is so much google noise around "leyenda negra" that I haven't managed to find a source in English or Spanish for the claim.
If it is OR, it is comparatively subtle, and sounds like something a scholar might have written. It doesn't seem to appear in the Spanish article though, which is an alarm bell for me.
I will leave the claim in the article for a couple of months, to see if anyone can source it. Then if nobody does, I will have a final search myself and cut the claim unless it can be supported.
-- Boynamedsue ( talk) 08:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
La figura histórica de Isabel Barreto viene muy a propósito para acabar de una vez con esa idea tan abundantemente esparcida por los anglosajones de que España envió a América sólo conquerors, mientras que ellos iban con sus familias. Ergo eran settlers, no conquerors, lo cual ofrece una estampa mucho más amable, que sigue promocionándose en los libros de texto, para que no haya una generación a la que no se le incruste una imagen de los españoles como unos tíos con armadura y armas de fuego que iban arrasando todo lo que encontraban, frente a idílicas estampas de granjas de "colonos" ingleses al lado de un arroyito donde una señora con caperuza puritana le echa de comer a las gallinas. Véase para cuarto de primaria el manual estadounidense Reflections. La imagen buena frente a la imagen mala. Esta insistencia en la falta de mujeres no es un detalle sin importancia. Ha servido para justificar el mestizaje, que no había manera de obviar, no como la demostración de la falta de racismo y de capacidad para relacionarse con el Otro, sino por pura necesidad fisiológica, ya que no había españolas. Los españoles no habrían tenido más remedio que recurrir a las indias a falta de otras hembras, y no por procedimientos precisamente pacíficos.
"Isabel Barreto, la mujer almirante" (21-08-2018), María Elvira Roca Barea
Hi, thanks for writing. The quote you provide doesn't support the statement that was in the text. The text says the use of the word "conquistador" rather than "conqueror" was to create a separate category of Spanish conqueror, when they were in essence the same. I would suggest that Roca Barrea's argument is much more nuanced than that, from what you quote. If you wish to re-write the relevant paragraph quoting her by name and synthesising the opinion (I'm assuming she's a reliable source), I think it would be a good addition. -- Boynamedsue ( talk) 19:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
OMG. I have watched the video, is that person supposed to be a historian? Serious question, because she doesn't talk like one.
There are copious English language primary sources on the Spanish Armada, the contrast between settlement and elite conquest is entirely valid, because that is what happened. The Spanish took over people, the English took over land. The word conquistador is not the same as conqueror, and we use the first for different situations. There is an interesting contrast to be made in modenr American popular history's view of their colonisation, and its roots in 19th century concepts of race and what was known as 'miscegenation'. But she isn't doing that, she just wants people to shut up about Spain conquering things. -- Boynamedsue ( talk) 11:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
If you feel the article can be improved, please do so. It should be done from a neutral point of view (i.e. describing the BL as a theory rather than a fact, attributing opinions etc, clarifying minority/majority positions). To my mind it is still excessively focused on advocating the position that the BL is a serious factor in the modern day, but sourced additions in a neutral tone are the way forward.
Re, the English conquering land and killing and driving off the people, instead of the Spanish conquering populations and making them work for them. The statement I made was with regards to your precise argument about the Americas, linked to that of the dodgy historian who appears in the article. The English established a population in the new world, on the basis of moving whole families to settle land. The Spanish tended to take over existing populations, mixing with them, usually through the male line. There are exceptions to both statements but they generally reflect facts. I personally consider both to have been completely immoral conquests, that would never have happened in a just world. You make the classic mistake of the nationalist in assuming everybody else is also one. I am fully aware of the United Kingdom's shameful history of imperialism, I don't cry about people mentioning it.
Re the word "conquistador" pl "conquistadors". These words are English words, their etymology in Spanish is irrelevant. Its English meaning is "one of the Spanish people who took control of Mexico and Peru by force in the sixteenth century". Boynamedsue ( talk) 12:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
BTW, the argument that there was no particularity in the early Spanish conquerors of the New World, and that use of a separate word to describe them constitutes a form of hispanophobia is, to my mind, completely wrong. But if a reliable source can be found to which this opinion can be attributed, then it should be in the text. Otherwise it is just original research, and remains outside the scope of the article. -- Boynamedsue ( talk) 13:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
This isn't a forum, but I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make here. The genetic evidence is extremely clear for most places in South America, European men had children with native and African women and had a continued reproductive advantage throughout, and beyond, the colonial period. At no point have I said that no Spanish women came to the new world, I said that the Spanish predominantly conquered populations and used them for their profit, whereas the English in North America were interested in taking the land and settling it as families. The data you present does not contradict that. If you think any of the stuff you quote should be in the article, put it, in attributed to the author. -- Boynamedsue ( talk) 16:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
BTW Barrea is a nationalist historian, from what I have heard she is obsessed with what the rest of the world thinks of Spain, rather than what happened in history. I would put the video you linked in the same category as those nutters who think Columbus was Catalan. Maybe she hasn't developed the symptoms as badly as they have, but she's got the same virus. -- Boynamedsue ( talk) 17:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
The armies that defeated the Aztecs were mostly local indigenous enemies, not Europeans. The lack of immunity to Old World diseases wiped out a larger portion of the indigenous population, including allies, rather than warfare. In many instances diseases ran ahead of European incursions and decimated the population before a European had set foot in the area. So this arguably unintended biological genocide is what enabled opportunistic foreign invaders to take advantage of the situation.
In that sense it’s not really comparable to wars in Europe where neither side involved was having to contend with soldiers dying from diseases or being physically incapacitated from pandemics while engaged in battle at the same time. It’s for that reason, not because of any supposed European benevolence, that describing these events as ‘conquest’ are somewhat of a misnomer.
Moreover the catastrophic effect that pandemics had on the native population allowed Westernized mestizos, who had better immunity and outnumbered those of European ancestry early in the colonial period, to thrive and prosper at the expense of the indigenous population and gradually assimilated, voluntarily of by force, the indigenous population spread across Latin America.
This was a long process as after the fall of the Aztecs, many indigenous people were not under European rule and remained autonomous for centuries and by that stage mestizos would have comprised the majority of the inhabitants in European colonies. Therefore the portrayal that this drawn out assimilation process was a solely European effort is not entirely accurate either.
Also there are many parts in Latin America where the population is overwhelmingly indigenous, such as most of Bolivia, Peru, Southern Mexico, etc... Not every place has populations that could be described as being evenly mestizo in ancestry, particularly in regards to European ancestry. European ancestry has been diluted in the general population (20% or less) and more commonly found (50% or more) among the well off, due to a bias of choosing lighter skinned individuals for marriage since colonization began. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.117.190 ( talk) 09:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I am currently rewriting these sections to include the debate on whether the BL currently exists, hopefully to include points of view from Barea, Garcia Carcel and Villacanas. I have had to cut a lot of OR from that section, and quite a bit of duplication, but it will expand again as I get hold of texts from the main names. Boynamedsue ( talk) 19:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I have removed the following from the text, as there is no evidence that the author connected their analysis of the American anti-Spanish propaganda of the Spanish-American war to a generalised Black Legend. It is stated in the article as general fact about the Black Legend when it actually relates to a very specific period.
Image makers typically pictured Spain as a pirate or demon, surrounded by symbols of gothic horror such as skeletons, bloody knives, and skulls. [1]
In order to make the text accord with the source it claims to be based on in would have to be changed to the following:
American Image makers during the Spanish American war pictured Spain as a pirate or demon, surrounded by symbols of gothic horror such as skeletons, bloody knives, and skulls. [2]
Putting this in the text would count as OR, as it would be the wikiusers synthesising arguments. Boynamedsue ( talk) 14:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I've just completed a reorganisation of the page, its structure was weak, with lots of mini-sections with little content and duplication of content. The internal coherence of various sections had been weakened by lots of mini-edits over time, so I worked to reintroduce that. Over the course of the reorganisation, I had to delete quite a bit of OR, duplication, and claims not justified by their source. As there was often a reference, it could look like deletion of sourced material, so I have included the removed sections here with its rationale.
King Philip, at the time also king of Portugal, was accused of cruelty for his hanging of supporters of António, Prior of Crato, the rival contender for the throne of Portugal, on yardarms on the Azores islands following the Battle of Ponta Delgada.
Unsourced, I couldn't find a reliable source that links this specific incident to the Black Legend, so it was removed.
The best selling book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind systematically uses Spain for negative examples, such as the effects of colonialism, while turning to other countries, such as the United Kingdom and India, to highlight the positive consequences of imperialism.
This is unsupported by a source, I searched for one that linked Sapiens to the Black Legend, both in English and Spanish, but found nothing.
* References to Black Legend constructs are currently used in Argentina to argue in favor of protectionist policies against Spanish companies. [3]
The source is an article that the user who first wrote it believes to use a Black Legend trope, rather than quoting a scholar who claims it does. Therefore, OR
In 2012, the British TV show Lonely Planet broadcast an episode about the Age of Discovery, in which Spanish, Portuguese, English, Dutch, and Turkish explorers were depicted. Only in the case of the Spaniards was any violent or negative action shown, devoting most of the time of the segment to how they killed and looted, while no mention was made of any such things by the English or Dutch, nor was the Portuguese slave trade shown. Additionally, none of the main exploration or scientific trips by Spain were shown. There was also no mention of the percentage of Native Population in each of the former colonies that could balance the lack of violence shown regarding central European nations. citation needed
Unsourced OR
Image makers typically pictured Spain as a pirate or demon, surrounded by symbols of gothic horror such as skeletons, bloody knives, and skulls. [4]
The source relates to the specific context of contemporary US propaganda of the Spanish American war, it does not link it to the Black Legend. It certainly does not merit the phrase "Image makers" and "Typically" suggesting this behaviour is generic when the source does not.
This allowed for other countries to gain Native American support due to the propaganda against the Spanish on their treatment of natives and those that do not follow Catholic beliefs. [5]
No mention of Native Americans in the source.
The black legend is cited in films such as Victoria & Abdul. [6]
The article linked does not mention the Black Legend, therefore would class as OR.
regarding the unquestioning acceptance of unchecked numbers of injured that turned out to be false
The reason Josep Borell believed the Black Legend to be applicable to coverage of the Catalan protests is not mentioned in the source, injury numbers do not appear.
Spanish proponents of the prevalence of the Black Legend point out that the Black Legend view of Spain and Spanish history, as well as its anti-Catholic elements, are common in popular culture, such as in films like Elizabeth, whereas popular culture references to similar deeds by other colonial powers are scarce or idealized in movies such as Victoria & Abdul. [7]
The source does not mention the film Elizabeth, nor does it mention the Black Legend.
I only removed one unsourced paragraph on account of bias.
The image of a fanatical, overly-Catholic Spain has little to do with medieval Spain, where cohabitation, relative tolerance, and frequent intermarriage was the norm. Muslims in Christian territory were, for the most part, allowed to keep their religion; Jews held high public office. citation needed Scholarly cooperation with Arabic and Jewish scholars was common since the 11th century, and Jewish professors reportedly taught at the University of Salamanca. citation needed
This seems to be a little irrelevant to the topic, given that the Black Legend is specifically linked to the post-medieval period (pretty much by definition, 1492 and all that). I don't feel that, for example, the fact that Spain treated Jews better than most of Europe in 1350 is more important than the fact it treated them far worse in 1650. Perhaps this was once part of a more subtle argument, but the way the page has evolved it looked odd and declamatory. Boynamedsue ( talk) 14:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Actually, it did treat the Jews better than most of Europe and it is easily sourced. Not really sure removing the paragraph is correct, its better to source it.-- Php2000 ( talk) 13:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Php2000 I agree that the fact Jews in Spain were better treated than Jews anywhere else in Western Europe in the Medieval period is very easily sourced, but to say this is relevant to the Black Legend is OR, unless part of some broader argument supported by a RS. Boynamedsue ( talk) 16:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok, so add the specific points he makes to the article, attributing the opinion to the author. Boynamedsue ( talk) 15:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I see no reason in the article to describe the historiographical tendency to be "alleged" (in "The Black Legend (Spanish: La leyenda negra), or the Spanish Black Legend, is an alleged historiographical tendency"), therefore I propose to remove it. -- Luigi Albert Maria ( talk) 14:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
There are several very important scholars who dispute its existence, Benjamin Keen and the group around Ricardo Garcia Carcel being the most prominent. There are also a very large number of scholars who argue it existed in the past but no longer does. It violates NPOV to state that it exists in the intro. -- Boynamedsue ( talk) 07:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Its amazing and amazingly sourced and balanced. We should be simply translating it here. It completely removes the need to edit war on this article since it pretty much encompasses everything anyone has ever said on the topic. -- Php2000 ( talk) 18:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
There have been a few good additions to the article over the last few months, but some English mistakes have slipped in which I am sorting out. There is a small comprehension problem with one paragraph, I'm not really sure what it means as the English is a little problematic due to translation. I have left a message at the talk page of the user who made the edit so we can rework it to include. Text below:
As she defines the traits common to all black legends affecting all empires, and the common claims they make about all this different political entities, she points at the beginning stages of a black legend regarding United Estates of America that would follow a similar pattern to that of other empires.
Boynamedsue ( talk) 16:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Antiespaña. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 2#Antiespaña until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve ( talk) 19:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
'After years of unrest in the Low Countries, the summer of 1567 saw renewed violence in which Dutch Calvinists defaced statues and decorations in Catholic monasteries and churches.'
The year 1567 is clearly an erratum. The Iconoclastic Fury took place one year earlier.
'... the wave of disorderly attacks in the summer of 1566 ...' ( /info/en/?search=Beeldenstorm) -- 31.4.189.34 ( talk) 12:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
The relevance of a map of Spanish colonial possessions provides useful information to the reader. A map of Spanish universities seems to bear no relation to the topic of the article. Is it perhaps an attempt to say "look, the Spanish did good things in Latin America"? Genuine question, I don't know, it is so left field it is hard to understand and is likely to confuse readers. As it is, I am reverting to consensus, which was the map of Spanish colonial possessions, as part of the BRD cycle.
Boynamedsue ( talk) 09:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
I would like you to explain to me why you think that the black legend reflects the reality of the Spanish empire.Your words should be explained: "Is it perhaps an attempt to say "look, the Spanish did good things in Latin America"? Genuine question". -- Vicentemovil ( talk) 13:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
If there is disputed information in the article, either edit it or say what it is here. A disputed tag shouldn't be added without any context. Boynamedsue ( talk) 12:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
The user Boynamedsue has been edit warring and vandalising on this article for more than a year now, with impunity.
He has been adding the word "theory" into the article without proper Wp:Sources. He has removed the citation needed request, at least 3 times before.
Please read the last for lines of the current version of the lead again and think whetherit makes Wikipedians look like idiots who are at odds with the scholarship and research: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1208778294 "Although most scholars agree that the term Black Legend might be useful to describe 17th and 18th century anti-Spanish propaganda, there is no consensus on whether the phenomenon persists in the present day."
It looks like Boynamedsue is in denialism about the black legend, it was just a conspiracy theory or whatever for the user, while the article itself says "most scholars agree" the black legend was practised.
If boynamedsue cannot produce sources for the black legend being a mere unproven theory made to malign the alrighteous Dutch colonial empire or another party, rather than something that was actually practiced according scholars and research; he should held accountable for abusing Wikipedia according to WP:Agenda and WP:Bias 2409:4071:6EC1:4B49:DEA:27BB:F826:B48A ( talk) 22:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Material from Black legend was split to Black legend (Spain) on 21 November 2019 from this version. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Black legend. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 September 2019 and 24 January 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Darlynl.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
There are quite a few white-legendy aspects here, the idea that Spanish atrocities must only be talked about if we also mention atrocities by other countries at the same time runs through the whole article. I have removed some of the worst examples, false claims that only Spain had legal protections for native peoples, the use of the word "Excesses" which is a weasel word used to refer to war crimes committed by one's own side in a "just" war, the nonsensical claim that Spain was the first abolitionist state when it did not ban slavery until 1886. However, it really needs complete reconstruction, probably dividing into two clearly differentiated sections, one the early modern anti-Spanish propaganda in Northern Europe and one on the historiography of the supposed Black Legend. The first clearly exists, the second is mostly a Spanish perception of how the world sees it. Boynamedsue ( talk) 07:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
En este camino llegó hasta el extremo, único en la historia de los poderes coloniales, de promulgar una legislación para las Indias más avanzada y generosa que la misma legislación a que estaban sometidos, en España, los peninsulares.
Hi, I am not disputing that there was a humanitarian component to the intention of Spanish colonial laws, and that it was present as early as could reasonably be expected. The fact that there was extreme brutality at the same time, and that the process of conquest and incorporation into Spanish society involved "encomienda" that was little better than enslavement is also relevant when discussing this. However, the statement that was in the article that ONLY Spain protected indigenous populations is false. All colonial societies, even the Belgian Congo, had some formal legal protection of native populations.
As for the rest, I find it hard to see this as much more than a thin-skinned attitude. When the British talk about our witch burnings, our colonial genocides, or our religious executions, we do not feel the need to compare ourselves to another country. The Black Legend exists, primarily, in the Spanish self-image. -- Boynamedsue ( talk) 19:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I have removed the following references and added citation tag:
https://uvadoc.uva.es/bitstream/handle/10324/25577/TFG_F_2017_111.pdf;jsessionid=4160B5EF22CC5D86A6A18A1EFD779377?sequence=1 https://www.elconfidencial.com/alma-corazon-vida/2015-09-25/fue-mucho-peor-los-genocidios-de-los-ingleses-contra-nuestra-leyenda-negra_1037058/
Neither text supports the claim in the text, which is that non-Spaniards create special linguistic categories for Spanish colonial behaviour to differentiate it from the behaviour of their colonialists, specifically using conquistador as an example. I don't personally agree with the argument, as for me conquistadors did have certain characteristics particular to their environment, culture and period, but I think it is an interesting point that would merit inclusion if it could be sourced. Unfortunately there is so much google noise around "leyenda negra" that I haven't managed to find a source in English or Spanish for the claim.
If it is OR, it is comparatively subtle, and sounds like something a scholar might have written. It doesn't seem to appear in the Spanish article though, which is an alarm bell for me.
I will leave the claim in the article for a couple of months, to see if anyone can source it. Then if nobody does, I will have a final search myself and cut the claim unless it can be supported.
-- Boynamedsue ( talk) 08:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
La figura histórica de Isabel Barreto viene muy a propósito para acabar de una vez con esa idea tan abundantemente esparcida por los anglosajones de que España envió a América sólo conquerors, mientras que ellos iban con sus familias. Ergo eran settlers, no conquerors, lo cual ofrece una estampa mucho más amable, que sigue promocionándose en los libros de texto, para que no haya una generación a la que no se le incruste una imagen de los españoles como unos tíos con armadura y armas de fuego que iban arrasando todo lo que encontraban, frente a idílicas estampas de granjas de "colonos" ingleses al lado de un arroyito donde una señora con caperuza puritana le echa de comer a las gallinas. Véase para cuarto de primaria el manual estadounidense Reflections. La imagen buena frente a la imagen mala. Esta insistencia en la falta de mujeres no es un detalle sin importancia. Ha servido para justificar el mestizaje, que no había manera de obviar, no como la demostración de la falta de racismo y de capacidad para relacionarse con el Otro, sino por pura necesidad fisiológica, ya que no había españolas. Los españoles no habrían tenido más remedio que recurrir a las indias a falta de otras hembras, y no por procedimientos precisamente pacíficos.
"Isabel Barreto, la mujer almirante" (21-08-2018), María Elvira Roca Barea
Hi, thanks for writing. The quote you provide doesn't support the statement that was in the text. The text says the use of the word "conquistador" rather than "conqueror" was to create a separate category of Spanish conqueror, when they were in essence the same. I would suggest that Roca Barrea's argument is much more nuanced than that, from what you quote. If you wish to re-write the relevant paragraph quoting her by name and synthesising the opinion (I'm assuming she's a reliable source), I think it would be a good addition. -- Boynamedsue ( talk) 19:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
OMG. I have watched the video, is that person supposed to be a historian? Serious question, because she doesn't talk like one.
There are copious English language primary sources on the Spanish Armada, the contrast between settlement and elite conquest is entirely valid, because that is what happened. The Spanish took over people, the English took over land. The word conquistador is not the same as conqueror, and we use the first for different situations. There is an interesting contrast to be made in modenr American popular history's view of their colonisation, and its roots in 19th century concepts of race and what was known as 'miscegenation'. But she isn't doing that, she just wants people to shut up about Spain conquering things. -- Boynamedsue ( talk) 11:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
If you feel the article can be improved, please do so. It should be done from a neutral point of view (i.e. describing the BL as a theory rather than a fact, attributing opinions etc, clarifying minority/majority positions). To my mind it is still excessively focused on advocating the position that the BL is a serious factor in the modern day, but sourced additions in a neutral tone are the way forward.
Re, the English conquering land and killing and driving off the people, instead of the Spanish conquering populations and making them work for them. The statement I made was with regards to your precise argument about the Americas, linked to that of the dodgy historian who appears in the article. The English established a population in the new world, on the basis of moving whole families to settle land. The Spanish tended to take over existing populations, mixing with them, usually through the male line. There are exceptions to both statements but they generally reflect facts. I personally consider both to have been completely immoral conquests, that would never have happened in a just world. You make the classic mistake of the nationalist in assuming everybody else is also one. I am fully aware of the United Kingdom's shameful history of imperialism, I don't cry about people mentioning it.
Re the word "conquistador" pl "conquistadors". These words are English words, their etymology in Spanish is irrelevant. Its English meaning is "one of the Spanish people who took control of Mexico and Peru by force in the sixteenth century". Boynamedsue ( talk) 12:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
BTW, the argument that there was no particularity in the early Spanish conquerors of the New World, and that use of a separate word to describe them constitutes a form of hispanophobia is, to my mind, completely wrong. But if a reliable source can be found to which this opinion can be attributed, then it should be in the text. Otherwise it is just original research, and remains outside the scope of the article. -- Boynamedsue ( talk) 13:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
This isn't a forum, but I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make here. The genetic evidence is extremely clear for most places in South America, European men had children with native and African women and had a continued reproductive advantage throughout, and beyond, the colonial period. At no point have I said that no Spanish women came to the new world, I said that the Spanish predominantly conquered populations and used them for their profit, whereas the English in North America were interested in taking the land and settling it as families. The data you present does not contradict that. If you think any of the stuff you quote should be in the article, put it, in attributed to the author. -- Boynamedsue ( talk) 16:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
BTW Barrea is a nationalist historian, from what I have heard she is obsessed with what the rest of the world thinks of Spain, rather than what happened in history. I would put the video you linked in the same category as those nutters who think Columbus was Catalan. Maybe she hasn't developed the symptoms as badly as they have, but she's got the same virus. -- Boynamedsue ( talk) 17:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
The armies that defeated the Aztecs were mostly local indigenous enemies, not Europeans. The lack of immunity to Old World diseases wiped out a larger portion of the indigenous population, including allies, rather than warfare. In many instances diseases ran ahead of European incursions and decimated the population before a European had set foot in the area. So this arguably unintended biological genocide is what enabled opportunistic foreign invaders to take advantage of the situation.
In that sense it’s not really comparable to wars in Europe where neither side involved was having to contend with soldiers dying from diseases or being physically incapacitated from pandemics while engaged in battle at the same time. It’s for that reason, not because of any supposed European benevolence, that describing these events as ‘conquest’ are somewhat of a misnomer.
Moreover the catastrophic effect that pandemics had on the native population allowed Westernized mestizos, who had better immunity and outnumbered those of European ancestry early in the colonial period, to thrive and prosper at the expense of the indigenous population and gradually assimilated, voluntarily of by force, the indigenous population spread across Latin America.
This was a long process as after the fall of the Aztecs, many indigenous people were not under European rule and remained autonomous for centuries and by that stage mestizos would have comprised the majority of the inhabitants in European colonies. Therefore the portrayal that this drawn out assimilation process was a solely European effort is not entirely accurate either.
Also there are many parts in Latin America where the population is overwhelmingly indigenous, such as most of Bolivia, Peru, Southern Mexico, etc... Not every place has populations that could be described as being evenly mestizo in ancestry, particularly in regards to European ancestry. European ancestry has been diluted in the general population (20% or less) and more commonly found (50% or more) among the well off, due to a bias of choosing lighter skinned individuals for marriage since colonization began. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.117.190 ( talk) 09:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I am currently rewriting these sections to include the debate on whether the BL currently exists, hopefully to include points of view from Barea, Garcia Carcel and Villacanas. I have had to cut a lot of OR from that section, and quite a bit of duplication, but it will expand again as I get hold of texts from the main names. Boynamedsue ( talk) 19:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I have removed the following from the text, as there is no evidence that the author connected their analysis of the American anti-Spanish propaganda of the Spanish-American war to a generalised Black Legend. It is stated in the article as general fact about the Black Legend when it actually relates to a very specific period.
Image makers typically pictured Spain as a pirate or demon, surrounded by symbols of gothic horror such as skeletons, bloody knives, and skulls. [1]
In order to make the text accord with the source it claims to be based on in would have to be changed to the following:
American Image makers during the Spanish American war pictured Spain as a pirate or demon, surrounded by symbols of gothic horror such as skeletons, bloody knives, and skulls. [2]
Putting this in the text would count as OR, as it would be the wikiusers synthesising arguments. Boynamedsue ( talk) 14:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I've just completed a reorganisation of the page, its structure was weak, with lots of mini-sections with little content and duplication of content. The internal coherence of various sections had been weakened by lots of mini-edits over time, so I worked to reintroduce that. Over the course of the reorganisation, I had to delete quite a bit of OR, duplication, and claims not justified by their source. As there was often a reference, it could look like deletion of sourced material, so I have included the removed sections here with its rationale.
King Philip, at the time also king of Portugal, was accused of cruelty for his hanging of supporters of António, Prior of Crato, the rival contender for the throne of Portugal, on yardarms on the Azores islands following the Battle of Ponta Delgada.
Unsourced, I couldn't find a reliable source that links this specific incident to the Black Legend, so it was removed.
The best selling book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind systematically uses Spain for negative examples, such as the effects of colonialism, while turning to other countries, such as the United Kingdom and India, to highlight the positive consequences of imperialism.
This is unsupported by a source, I searched for one that linked Sapiens to the Black Legend, both in English and Spanish, but found nothing.
* References to Black Legend constructs are currently used in Argentina to argue in favor of protectionist policies against Spanish companies. [3]
The source is an article that the user who first wrote it believes to use a Black Legend trope, rather than quoting a scholar who claims it does. Therefore, OR
In 2012, the British TV show Lonely Planet broadcast an episode about the Age of Discovery, in which Spanish, Portuguese, English, Dutch, and Turkish explorers were depicted. Only in the case of the Spaniards was any violent or negative action shown, devoting most of the time of the segment to how they killed and looted, while no mention was made of any such things by the English or Dutch, nor was the Portuguese slave trade shown. Additionally, none of the main exploration or scientific trips by Spain were shown. There was also no mention of the percentage of Native Population in each of the former colonies that could balance the lack of violence shown regarding central European nations. citation needed
Unsourced OR
Image makers typically pictured Spain as a pirate or demon, surrounded by symbols of gothic horror such as skeletons, bloody knives, and skulls. [4]
The source relates to the specific context of contemporary US propaganda of the Spanish American war, it does not link it to the Black Legend. It certainly does not merit the phrase "Image makers" and "Typically" suggesting this behaviour is generic when the source does not.
This allowed for other countries to gain Native American support due to the propaganda against the Spanish on their treatment of natives and those that do not follow Catholic beliefs. [5]
No mention of Native Americans in the source.
The black legend is cited in films such as Victoria & Abdul. [6]
The article linked does not mention the Black Legend, therefore would class as OR.
regarding the unquestioning acceptance of unchecked numbers of injured that turned out to be false
The reason Josep Borell believed the Black Legend to be applicable to coverage of the Catalan protests is not mentioned in the source, injury numbers do not appear.
Spanish proponents of the prevalence of the Black Legend point out that the Black Legend view of Spain and Spanish history, as well as its anti-Catholic elements, are common in popular culture, such as in films like Elizabeth, whereas popular culture references to similar deeds by other colonial powers are scarce or idealized in movies such as Victoria & Abdul. [7]
The source does not mention the film Elizabeth, nor does it mention the Black Legend.
I only removed one unsourced paragraph on account of bias.
The image of a fanatical, overly-Catholic Spain has little to do with medieval Spain, where cohabitation, relative tolerance, and frequent intermarriage was the norm. Muslims in Christian territory were, for the most part, allowed to keep their religion; Jews held high public office. citation needed Scholarly cooperation with Arabic and Jewish scholars was common since the 11th century, and Jewish professors reportedly taught at the University of Salamanca. citation needed
This seems to be a little irrelevant to the topic, given that the Black Legend is specifically linked to the post-medieval period (pretty much by definition, 1492 and all that). I don't feel that, for example, the fact that Spain treated Jews better than most of Europe in 1350 is more important than the fact it treated them far worse in 1650. Perhaps this was once part of a more subtle argument, but the way the page has evolved it looked odd and declamatory. Boynamedsue ( talk) 14:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Actually, it did treat the Jews better than most of Europe and it is easily sourced. Not really sure removing the paragraph is correct, its better to source it.-- Php2000 ( talk) 13:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Php2000 I agree that the fact Jews in Spain were better treated than Jews anywhere else in Western Europe in the Medieval period is very easily sourced, but to say this is relevant to the Black Legend is OR, unless part of some broader argument supported by a RS. Boynamedsue ( talk) 16:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok, so add the specific points he makes to the article, attributing the opinion to the author. Boynamedsue ( talk) 15:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I see no reason in the article to describe the historiographical tendency to be "alleged" (in "The Black Legend (Spanish: La leyenda negra), or the Spanish Black Legend, is an alleged historiographical tendency"), therefore I propose to remove it. -- Luigi Albert Maria ( talk) 14:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
There are several very important scholars who dispute its existence, Benjamin Keen and the group around Ricardo Garcia Carcel being the most prominent. There are also a very large number of scholars who argue it existed in the past but no longer does. It violates NPOV to state that it exists in the intro. -- Boynamedsue ( talk) 07:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Its amazing and amazingly sourced and balanced. We should be simply translating it here. It completely removes the need to edit war on this article since it pretty much encompasses everything anyone has ever said on the topic. -- Php2000 ( talk) 18:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
There have been a few good additions to the article over the last few months, but some English mistakes have slipped in which I am sorting out. There is a small comprehension problem with one paragraph, I'm not really sure what it means as the English is a little problematic due to translation. I have left a message at the talk page of the user who made the edit so we can rework it to include. Text below:
As she defines the traits common to all black legends affecting all empires, and the common claims they make about all this different political entities, she points at the beginning stages of a black legend regarding United Estates of America that would follow a similar pattern to that of other empires.
Boynamedsue ( talk) 16:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Antiespaña. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 2#Antiespaña until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve ( talk) 19:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
'After years of unrest in the Low Countries, the summer of 1567 saw renewed violence in which Dutch Calvinists defaced statues and decorations in Catholic monasteries and churches.'
The year 1567 is clearly an erratum. The Iconoclastic Fury took place one year earlier.
'... the wave of disorderly attacks in the summer of 1566 ...' ( /info/en/?search=Beeldenstorm) -- 31.4.189.34 ( talk) 12:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
The relevance of a map of Spanish colonial possessions provides useful information to the reader. A map of Spanish universities seems to bear no relation to the topic of the article. Is it perhaps an attempt to say "look, the Spanish did good things in Latin America"? Genuine question, I don't know, it is so left field it is hard to understand and is likely to confuse readers. As it is, I am reverting to consensus, which was the map of Spanish colonial possessions, as part of the BRD cycle.
Boynamedsue ( talk) 09:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
I would like you to explain to me why you think that the black legend reflects the reality of the Spanish empire.Your words should be explained: "Is it perhaps an attempt to say "look, the Spanish did good things in Latin America"? Genuine question". -- Vicentemovil ( talk) 13:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
If there is disputed information in the article, either edit it or say what it is here. A disputed tag shouldn't be added without any context. Boynamedsue ( talk) 12:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
The user Boynamedsue has been edit warring and vandalising on this article for more than a year now, with impunity.
He has been adding the word "theory" into the article without proper Wp:Sources. He has removed the citation needed request, at least 3 times before.
Please read the last for lines of the current version of the lead again and think whetherit makes Wikipedians look like idiots who are at odds with the scholarship and research: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1208778294 "Although most scholars agree that the term Black Legend might be useful to describe 17th and 18th century anti-Spanish propaganda, there is no consensus on whether the phenomenon persists in the present day."
It looks like Boynamedsue is in denialism about the black legend, it was just a conspiracy theory or whatever for the user, while the article itself says "most scholars agree" the black legend was practised.
If boynamedsue cannot produce sources for the black legend being a mere unproven theory made to malign the alrighteous Dutch colonial empire or another party, rather than something that was actually practiced according scholars and research; he should held accountable for abusing Wikipedia according to WP:Agenda and WP:Bias 2409:4071:6EC1:4B49:DEA:27BB:F826:B48A ( talk) 22:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)