|
|
| Author |
Message |
Moderator
Moderator
Joined: 25 Sep 2006
{Posts: 15 }
|
 Posted: Thu 08 Feb 2007 18:50 Post subject: |
 |
|
| Since the issue of who was or wasn't a conquistador isn't completely clear, due to the varying definitions of the word, the issue is hereby declared a non-issue. This is more about semantics than anything else. Both parties are asked to realize and accept this, and move on. Thank you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Salsassin
SuperWizard
Joined: 04 Apr 2005
{Posts: 3515 }
|
| Posted: Thu 08 Feb 2007 18:53 Post subject: |
|
|
| Nice strawman attempt as usual. Peru has nothing to do with Chile except for the fact most Afrodecent people touched those lands before they moved to Chile. No one disputes the fact that Peru has more Afrodescent or Chines decent people than Chile. But we dispute your claim about a lack of African ancestry in Chile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Salsassin
SuperWizard
Joined: 04 Apr 2005
{Posts: 3515 }
|
| Posted: Thu 08 Feb 2007 18:55 Post subject: |
|
|
| Moderator wrote: | | Since the issue of who was or wasn't a conquistador isn't completely clear, due to the varying definitions of the word, the issue is hereby declared a non-issue. This is more about semantics than anything else. Both parties are asked to realize and accept this, and move on. Thank you. |
Oh its clear. A word may have more than one definition. Neither denies the usage and existence of the other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oevega
SuperMentor
Joined: 04 May 2005
{Posts: 2021 }
Location: santiago, chile
|
| Posted: Thu 08 Feb 2007 19:53 Post subject: |
|
|
| Moderator wrote: | | Since the issue of who was or wasn't a conquistador isn't completely clear, due to the varying definitions of the word, the issue is hereby declared a non-issue. This is more about semantics than anything else. Both parties are asked to realize and accept this, and move on. Thank you. |
I agree and move on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepinno
New User
Joined: 20 Jul 2009
{Posts: 19 }
Location: Spain
|
| Posted: Mon 31 Aug 2009 23:18 Post subject: |
|
|
| fwsweet wrote: | | As far as I have been able to determine, the term "conquistador" has been used by different people at different times and places to denote the supreme leaders of expeditions to the New World (Cortez, Pizarro, etc.), to denote each lowly footsoldier (Diaz del Castillo), and to denote every junior officer in-between (Valiente). It seems to be a flexible generic term. |
It can be stretched that all the militia man fighting in the Conquista del Nuevo Mundo are "conquistadores". In the same sense that it can be stretched to say that a general is a soldier too.
However, although it is true that a general is a soldier too, when we usually talk about soldiers we are not talking about the generals. The analogy works for the conquistadores too: when we usually talk about the conquistadores we are not talking about the militia man in the ranks fighting in the Conquista del Nuevo Mundo.
But as long as a general is also a soldier, then a militia man in the ranks is a conquistador too. But that is not what is meant when we generally talk about conquistadores, or about generals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
