The Study of Racialism Forum Index
The Study of Racialism
Discussion of U.S. Racialism
Please read The Rules before posting.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch     RegisterRegister 
   Log inLog in 
'

Black Conquistadors
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Study of Racialism Forum Index -> Latin America
Author Message
Salsassin
SuperWizard
SuperWizard


Joined: 04 Apr 2005
{Posts: 3515 }

PostPosted: Sat 16 Dec 2006 20:52    Post subject: Black Conquistadors Reply with quote

http://onedroprule.org/forum/127/restall-blackconquistadors.pdf
Back to top
oevega
SuperMentor
SuperMentor


Joined: 04 May 2005
{Posts: 2021 }
Location: santiago, chile

PostPosted: Mon 18 Dec 2006 15:38    Post subject: Semantics Reply with quote

Hi,

There is a little problem of sematics in here. The conquistador was the chief of the expedition and ONLY the chief of the expedition, and all of them were Europeans, mainly Spaniards but a couple of Germans are also counted.

The troops were mainly Spanish but there are descriptions of a few Black people in there, in particular an African with Cortes, who brough an epidemy to Mexico.

So, if we want to be precise, there was no Black conquistadors but some Blacks came with the Spanish troops that were at the service of the conquistador.

Omar
Back to top
Salsassin
SuperWizard
SuperWizard


Joined: 04 Apr 2005
{Posts: 3515 }

PostPosted: Mon 18 Dec 2006 17:15    Post subject: Reply with quote

False Omar.

conquistador, ra.
1. adj. Que conquista. U. t. c. s.
Diccionario de la lengua española
La Real Academia Española

No importa el rango.

conquistador
NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. con·quis·ta·dors or con·quis·ta·dor·es (-dôrs, -z)
A conqueror, especially one of the 16th-century Spanish soldiers who defeated the Indian civilizations of Mexico, Central America, or Peru.
ETYMOLOGY: Spanish, from conquistar, to conquer, from Vulgar Latin *conqustre, frequentative of Latin conqurere, to procure. See conquer.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
Back to top
oevega
SuperMentor
SuperMentor


Joined: 04 May 2005
{Posts: 2021 }
Location: santiago, chile

PostPosted: Mon 18 Dec 2006 19:19    Post subject: Reply with quote

Salsassin wrote:
...especially one of the 16th-century Spanish soldiers .



Do you read it now?

Omar
Back to top
Salsassin
SuperWizard
SuperWizard


Joined: 04 Apr 2005
{Posts: 3515 }

PostPosted: Mon 18 Dec 2006 19:53    Post subject: Reply with quote

oevega wrote:
Salsassin wrote:
...especially one of the 16th-century Spanish soldiers .



Do you read it now?

Omar

Yes, and those Blacks were soldiers. Enough said.
Back to top
oevega
SuperMentor
SuperMentor


Joined: 04 May 2005
{Posts: 2021 }
Location: santiago, chile

PostPosted: Mon 18 Dec 2006 20:03    Post subject: Reply with quote

Salsassin wrote:
Yes, and those Blacks were soldiers. Enough said.


Well, but not Spaniards Wink

Therefore...

(By the way, this is just an exercise on REVISIONISM)

Omar
Back to top
Salsassin
SuperWizard
SuperWizard


Joined: 04 Apr 2005
{Posts: 3515 }

PostPosted: Mon 18 Dec 2006 20:33    Post subject: Reply with quote

oevega wrote:
Salsassin wrote:
Yes, and those Blacks were soldiers. Enough said.


Well, but not Spaniards Wink

Therefore...

(By the way, this is just an exercise on REVISIONISM)

Omar

Keep trying Omar. They were still soldiers in the service of Spain. Thus Spanish Soldiers. And you forgot the "especially" in the definition.
Back to top
oevega
SuperMentor
SuperMentor


Joined: 04 May 2005
{Posts: 2021 }
Location: santiago, chile

PostPosted: Mon 18 Dec 2006 21:14    Post subject: Reply with quote

Salsassin wrote:
...Keep trying Omar. They were still soldiers in the service of Spain. Thus Spanish Soldiers. And you forgot the "especially" in the definition.


Sure Jaime. In that case most of the Spanish soldiers were Native Americans Laughing Laughing Laughing

Do you see what happens when one twist the terms?

Omar
Back to top
Salsassin
SuperWizard
SuperWizard


Joined: 04 Apr 2005
{Posts: 3515 }

PostPosted: Mon 18 Dec 2006 21:30    Post subject: Reply with quote

Again, Nice try. Unless you can show that Native Americans were soldiers under the employment of the Spanish used to conquer other lands. No twisting. You just don't like the definition. Tough.
Back to top
oevega
SuperMentor
SuperMentor


Joined: 04 May 2005
{Posts: 2021 }
Location: santiago, chile

PostPosted: Mon 18 Dec 2006 21:36    Post subject: Spanish king Reply with quote

Don't you see? That's also wrong.

There was not Spanish military in the Americas. The conquistadors were the employers of theirs soldiers!

It was not the Spanish army which was destroying the Americas, lol. You well know the conquistadors were free enterpreneurs.

Now, you well know they pay their own soldier, and they also have slaves and large armies of friendly natives on their side.

Please, you know that!

Omar
Back to top
Salsassin
SuperWizard
SuperWizard


Joined: 04 Apr 2005
{Posts: 3515 }

PostPosted: Mon 18 Dec 2006 21:48    Post subject: Reply with quote

They brought them over from across the sea. Mercenaries or not, they were acting under Spanish influence. With Spanish titles and Spanish permission. Some of those Blacks got land for their role in the conquista. They were Black conquistadors. Period. Get a clue.
Back to top
oevega
SuperMentor
SuperMentor


Joined: 04 May 2005
{Posts: 2021 }
Location: santiago, chile

PostPosted: Mon 18 Dec 2006 22:12    Post subject: Reply with quote

Salsassin wrote:
They brought them over from across the sea. Mercenaries or not, they were acting under Spanish influence. With Spanish titles and Spanish permission. Some of those Blacks got land for their role in the conquista. They were Black conquistadors. Period. Get a clue.


The same for the Indians that fought for the Spaniards. They were acting under Spanish influence, they got Spanish titles and Spanish permission. Those Indians not only got some small farms but some even got nobility titles.

They were Indian conquistadors. Period. Get back to your books. Please. Laughing Laughing Laughing

Revisionism. Ha! Wink

Omar
Back to top
Salsassin
SuperWizard
SuperWizard


Joined: 04 Apr 2005
{Posts: 3515 }

PostPosted: Mon 18 Dec 2006 22:26    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice try Omar. Go Troll somewhere else. I never said that Indians that joined up with the Spanish didn't become conquistadors. They did.
Again, the paper is about Black conquistadors, if you don't like it, give a source for your claim that it is innacurate, or shut up.
Back to top
oevega
SuperMentor
SuperMentor


Joined: 04 May 2005
{Posts: 2021 }
Location: santiago, chile

PostPosted: Tue 19 Dec 2006 12:35    Post subject: Reply with quote

Salsassin wrote:
Nice try Omar. Go Troll somewhere else. I never said that Indians that joined up with the Spanish didn't become conquistadors. They did.
Again, the paper is about Black conquistadors, if you don't like it, give a source for your claim that it is innacurate, or shut up.


Nothing to prove, dear Jaime. It was just to show how easy is to use semantics to change meanings. Yes, it is true there were "others" in the ranks of the conquistadors. Actually, most of them were others. But don't forget the people history recorded as the conquistadors were the captains, the bosses, not the Chinese cook of the caravel, Wink

Just kidding, don't bug you more.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Omar
Back to top
Salsassin
SuperWizard
SuperWizard


Joined: 04 Apr 2005
{Posts: 3515 }

PostPosted: Tue 19 Dec 2006 15:00    Post subject: Reply with quote

Obviously these people got recorded in history as well, as they are on record. Enough said.

Last edited by Salsassin on Tue 19 Dec 2006 15:38; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
fwsweet
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 26 Nov 2004
{Posts: 5381 }
Location: Palm Coast, FL

PostPosted: Tue 19 Dec 2006 15:32    Post subject: Reply with quote

oevega wrote:
the people history recorded as the conquistadors were the captains, the bosses, not the Chinese cook of the caravel

The few exceptions, where the ordinary "GI Joe" recorded his experiences are particularly interesting.

Bernal Díaz del Castillo was an infantryman in Cortés’s army who wrote his memoir in 1555 at age 60, but it was not published until 1632. This old foot soldier’s tale is more detailed, earthy, and revealing than Cortés’s dry reports, especially regarding the minutiae of day-to-day events. On page 115 of Historia verdadera de la conquista de la Nueva España, he writes words that are familiar to every grunt. After telling how the officers had hired hundreds of native bearers and horse-drawn wagons to help carry their accoutrements, he writes, “We poor soldiers had no need of such help, for at that time time we had nothing to carry except our arms, lances, muskets, crossbows, shields…."
Back to top
Salsassin
SuperWizard
SuperWizard


Joined: 04 Apr 2005
{Posts: 3515 }

PostPosted: Tue 19 Dec 2006 15:40    Post subject: Reply with quote

fwsweet wrote:
oevega wrote:
the people history recorded as the conquistadors were the captains, the bosses, not the Chinese cook of the caravel

The few exceptions, where the ordinary "GI Joe" recorded his experiences are particularly interesting.

Bernal Díaz del Castillo was an infantryman in Cortés’s army who wrote his memoir in 1555 at age 60, but it was not published until 1632. This old foot soldier’s tale is more detailed, earthy, and revealing than Cortés’s dry reports, especially regarding the minutiae of day-to-day events. On page 115 of Historia verdadera de la conquista de la Nueva España, he writes words that are familiar to every grunt. After telling how the officers had hired hundreds of native bearers and horse-drawn wagons to help carry their accoutrements, he writes, “We poor soldiers had no need of such help, for at that time time we had nothing to carry except our arms, lances, muskets, crossbows, shields…."

Exactly. And to take it to a farther extreme, we only have accounts of the great Egyptian Pharaohs and some important priests, but rarely of the common folk, so are we to not consider them Egyptian?
Back to top
oevega
SuperMentor
SuperMentor


Joined: 04 May 2005
{Posts: 2021 }
Location: santiago, chile

PostPosted: Tue 19 Dec 2006 16:15    Post subject: Bernal Diaz del Castillo Reply with quote

My point is quite simple, "Conquistador" is a title assigned to the captains that had a contract with the crown to conquest new lands. it is like the Corsair patent of the British of the times of Queen Elizabeth I.

And army could have thousands of soldiers but only one general. Egypt had million of people but only one Pharaon. By the way, not all the Quechuas were Incas but only the ruler.

That what I mean. The Pizarro, Cortes, Almagro, Cabeza de Vaca and others were the Conquistadors, the rest were the troops at their service.


Penguin
Back to top
Salsassin
SuperWizard
SuperWizard


Joined: 04 Apr 2005
{Posts: 3515 }

PostPosted: Tue 19 Dec 2006 20:53    Post subject: Re: Bernal Diaz del Castillo Reply with quote

oevega wrote:
My point is quite simple, "Conquistador" is a title assigned to the captains that had a contract with the crown to conquest new lands. it is like the Corsair patent of the British of the times of Queen Elizabeth I.

And army could have thousands of soldiers but only one general. Egypt had million of people but only one Pharaon. By the way, not all the Quechuas were Incas but only the ruler.

That what I mean. The Pizarro, Cortes, Almagro, Cabeza de Vaca and others were the Conquistadors, the rest were the troops at their service.


Penguin

Evidence. Show that it was only an official title placed on captains.
Back to top
gemini072
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 27 Nov 2004
{Posts: 2942 }

PostPosted: Thu 08 Feb 2007 15:06    Post subject: Re: Spanish king Reply with quote

oevega wrote:
Don't you see? That's also wrong.

There was not Spanish military in the Americas. The conquistadors were the employers of theirs soldiers!

It was not the Spanish army which was destroying the Americas, lol. You well know the conquistadors were free enterpreneurs.

They represented Spain though. They may have done their own thing when the got here, but it was in the name & glory of Spain right?

Now, you well know they pay their own soldier, and they also have slaves and large armies of friendly natives on their side.

Please, you know that!

Omar
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Study of Racialism Forum Index -> Latin America All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group