Posted: Thu 08 Feb 2007 15:09 Post subject: Re: Bernal Diaz del Castillo
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.
Christopher Columbus, was he Italian or Spanish?
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.
comparing a general & a pharoah are two different things. An army could could have more than one general
That what I mean. The Pizarro, Cortes, Almagro, Cabeza de Vaca and others were the Conquistadors, the rest were the troops at their service.
Posted: Thu 08 Feb 2007 15:11 Post subject: Re: Semantics
oevega wrote:
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.
Conquistador (Spanish: [koŋ.kis.t̪a'ð̞oɾ]) (meaning "Conqueror" in the Spanish language) is the term used to refer to the soldiers, explorers, and adventurers who brought much of the Americas and Asia Pacific under Spanish colonial rule between the 15th and 17th centuries, starting with the 1492 settlement established in the modern-day Bahamas by Christopher Columbus.
Omar still loves purposely ignoring this fact that occured in CHILE
fwsweet wrote:
I try to avoid semantic debates over word meanings because they are usually sterile and seldom resolve. Nevertheless, I have been asked privately to opine on this issue.
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.
Perhaps a more precise term would be "hidalgo," the official state designation for a leadership position in the Spanish colonies. Only people of hidalgo status could hold public office. There were three routes to becoming an hidalgo: military officers, university scholars, and wealthy merchants. After the conquest of New Spain, for example, some of Cortez's soldiers were granted hidalgo status and some were not.
Another equally precise term was "encomendado," the term for someone granted an encomienda by the emperor. An encomienda was a village of Native Americans assigned to serve as hereditary forced laborers for an hidalgo. (The Spanish were careful not to call this system "slavery," but that is precisely what it amounted to.) Encomiendas were granted only to hidalgos who merited special reward from the emperor himself. All encomendados were hidalgos but not all hidalgos were granted an encomienda.
For example, see this post, which describes an African-born former slave who became an hidalgo and an encomendado while serving under Diego de Almagro and later under Pedro de Valdivia in the conquest of Chile.
Salsassin wrote:
oevega wrote:
Whatever,
We are talking about the meaning of words, that's all.
In any case, the most important Conquistadors were these. Is any non-European in there?
Which does not change the fact that they were not the only Conquistadors. Period.
Nice wikipedia paste. I'll use wikipedia as well.
Conquistador (Spanish: [koŋ.kis.t̪a'ð̞oɾ]) (meaning "Conqueror" in the Spanish language) is the term used to refer to the soldiers, explorers, and adventurers who brought much of the Americas and Asia Pacific under Spanish colonial rule between the 15th and 17th centuries, starting with the 1492 settlement established in the modern-day Bahamas by Christopher Columbus.
Juan Valiente (¿1505? - † Tucapel,1553), conquistador negro español.
Al igual que otros conquistadores negros como Juan Garrido y Sebastián Toral en México, o Juan Bardales en Honduras y Panamá, o Juan García en Perú y Juan Beltrán también en Chile, que fue encomendero y capitán del fuerte de Villarrica, Valiente había nacido con otro nombre en África occidental hacia 1505 y llegó como esclavo a México, donde hacia 1530 fue comprado por un español llamado Alonso Valiente, quien lo bautizó y lo llevó a trabajar a su casa, en Puebla.
Juan se cansó de esta vida doméstica y en 1533 convenció a su amo de que lo dejara ir para buscar nuevas oportunidades como conquistador por un periodo de 4 años, al cabo del cual regresaría con las ganancias obtenidas. Firmaron un acuerdo y Juan llegó a Guatemala a tiempo para unirse a la expedición de Pedro de Alvarado que se dirigía a Perú. Allí fue donde se unió a la compañía de Diego de Almagro y puso rumbo hacia el sur. Llegó por primera vez a Chile junto a Almagro y participó luego en la compañía de Pedro de Valdivia.
Valiente contribuyó a fundar Santiago de Chile en 1546 y fue premiado con una hacienda en las afueras de la ciudad. Cuatro años más tarde recibió una encomienda y alcanzó a formar una familia con Juana de Valdivia, con seguridad una ex esclava negra del gobernador.
En Chile, Valiente consiguió cierta fortuna y pudo vivir en libertad, pero a miles de kilómetros de allí Alonso Valiente no había olvidado la inversión que le significaba ser propietario de un conquistador. Le concedió un nuevo plazo y, más tarde, en 1541, envió a un nieto suyo para que lo recobrara o negociara con su esclavo un buen precio para manumitirlo. Sin embargo, Juan nunca olvidó su condición de esclavo y comisionó a un oficial real en 1550 para comprar su libertad, pero este terminó escapándose con los fondos. Alonso Valiente insistió en recuperar su inversión, pero entonces ya era muy tarde, pues el cuerpo de Juan Valiente descansaba en la Araucanía.
We are talking five centuries, after all. In that sense, Jaime, Omar, I, and everyone else in this discussion group is a direct lineal descendant of Ghengis Khan! Five centuries of pedigree collapse.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Thu 08 Feb 2007 16:09 Post subject:
Salsassin wrote:
Omar still loves purposely ignoring this fact that occured in CHILE...
Why should I?
It is known Valvidia brought a few slaves with him. When things got worst with the Mapuches, though, Valdivia was killed and the towns were burn, the project to build plantations in Chile was suspended. Since then Chile become a military post, where there were almost no slaves. That's why in the public works of forts, bridges or channels, forced labour of prisoners was used, instead of Indians (what could commit treason) or Blacks (there weren't enough). Slavery was common in Peru, Colombia and, of course, in the Caribbean, but not in here, I am afraid.
I notice that the "Black conquistador" you mention was never freed. That's a pitty. He was very rude with Natives, it seems, but he was never able to stand against its capturers. So, the very term "conquistador" I don't think applies in this case.
And yes, some ancestors of Frank were chileans. Great!
Salassin as requested has provided both English and Spanish sources to back up his claim. Mischaracterizing what he's written or slightly changing the nature of one's rebuttal to his claim doesn't change the fact that Salassin has provided some written evidence to support his contentions.
Perhaps the possibility that there were some Conquistadors who were black and/or mulatto is too difficult to believe for some, but it is up to the other party to provide some written evidence to counter what Salassin has said and attempted to substantiate.
We are talking five centuries, after all. In that sense, Jaime, Omar, I, and everyone else in this discussion group is a direct lineal descendant of Ghengis Khan! Five centuries of pedigree collapse.
When did your ancestors leave Chile? And yours is documented, I have no documents linking me to good ole Gengy
When did your ancestors leave Chile? And yours is documented, I have no documents linking me to good ole Gengy
I have no idea if these old stories told by my relatives are true. There is no shred of documentation to support the tale. As far back as I know for sure, the Valiente clan (my father's relatives) all comes from Colombia, not from Chile.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Thu 08 Feb 2007 17:54 Post subject:
G-Man wrote:
...
Perhaps the possibility that there were some Conquistadors who were black and/or mulatto is too difficult to believe for some, but it is up to the other party to provide some written evidence to counter what Salassin has said and attempted to substantiate.
Hi Moderator,
We are discussing semantics in here, that's all. When history books make lists of Conquistadors they include only the "adelantados", or the guys that got the contract. Conquistador is something very similar to Corsair. You have to have permission to do that. Now, you could say Drake was the Corsair or all the crew were corsairs. That's the semantical part of the game.
I just say there were not Black people that receive permission of the crown to be Conquistadors. I can't find any. If there is an example, it would like to see it. I never say there were not blacks in the troops. There were. Spaniards brough some slaves in theirs ranks, and we know it. Some become soldiers, and that is what say the documents of Salssasin, and I agree with those.
Well, at least one counts brown Pizarro as a Black man, but that's another topic.
Omar still loves purposely ignoring this fact that occured in CHILE...
Why should I?
It is known Valvidia brought a few slaves with him. When things got worst with the Mapuches, though, Valdivia was killed and the towns were burn, the project to build plantations in Chile was suspended. Since then Chile become a military post, where there were almost no slaves. That's why in the public works of forts, bridges or channels, forced labour of prisoners was used, instead of Indians (what could commit treason) or Blacks (there weren't enough). Slavery was common in Peru, Colombia and, of course, in the Caribbean, but not in here, I am afraid.
I notice that the "Black conquistador" you mention was never freed. That's a pitty. He was very rude with Natives, it seems, but he was never able to stand against its capturers. So, the very term "conquistador" I don't think applies in this case.
And yes, some ancestors of Frank were chileans. Great!
Omar
I will wait for your evidence that an encomendado could still be a slave.
Perhaps the possibility that there were some Conquistadors who were black and/or mulatto is too difficult to believe for some, but it is up to the other party to provide some written evidence to counter what Salassin has said and attempted to substantiate.
Hi Moderator,
We are discussing semantics in here, that's all. When history books make lists of Conquistadors they include only the "adelantados", or the guys that got the contract. Conquistador is something very similar to Corsair. You have to have permission to do that. Now, you could say Drake was the Corsair or all the crew were corsairs. That's the semantical part of the game.
I just say there were not Black people that receive permission of the crown to be Conquistadors. I can't find any. If there is an example, it would like to see it. I never say there were not blacks in the troops. There were. Spaniards brough some slaves in theirs ranks, and we know it. Some become soldiers, and that is what say the documents of Salssasin, and I agree with those.
Well, at least one counts brown Pizarro as a Black man, but that's another topic.
Omar
You have yet to provide an official source for these lists of Conquistadors, and furthermore, a list is not the only source of usage in a language. I have provided plenty of evidence in literature of people, not on your lists, who were referred to as conquistadores. Furthermore, I will wait for you to give official evidence of an official designated title of Conquistador given by the Crown to those who would seek to conquer lands in the Americas.
Why don't you look by yourself?
Look for any African person that sent letters to the crown. Simple.
You know the answer, Jaime, as well as I do. Why you insist in such Bizantine discussions.
Omar
Nice strawman Omar. Still waiting for your sources. And I will wait for your evidence that Valiente did not receive an Encomienda.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
