[turkishrevenge]

Fine, I understand where you're coming from. Consider though that by very fact the conquistadors received funding from the crown, must in some way, shape, or form, have reflected prevailing attitudes at the time in Spain and within the Catholic church. After all, one of the goals of the expeditions was to "Christianize" the godless heathens, as well as "find" material wealth. So in this sense, yes, some of the attitudes at the time, e.g. the spread of Christendom by any (usually violent) means necessary, are ugly and bad.

> "The real world is complicated, and all-or-nothing thinking is irrationally and unforgivably lazy."

Yes, some idea require a certain nuanced approach to fully comprehend, others however, do not. This is not one of them. I guess you can throw up you up your hand and cry "I can't decide, these waters are too ethically difficult to navigate, argh!" and forever cop out. It's easier.

[lolcraft]

The problem is that you are actually understanding that conflict less, by painting 16th century Spain as how you'd like it to have been. For example, the Spanish crown formally accepted the natives, since the return of Columbus, as citizens of the crown subject to the same protections a native spaniard had back then. Very liberal for the century. It's just that the landlords (caciques) were much more seduced by the idea of free labour, and there was no government oversight on the vast, new-found lands. Similarly, the Company of Jesus were a religious order which instructed the natives, built schools, advocated for the end of all slavery, and protected natives from exploitation at hands of ruthless Europeans. Hardly crusaders or templars. But sure, if blind prejudice derived by generalization makes you feel superior...

[turkishrevenge]

Thank you for the historical context. I did not know that.

[timwiseman]

Yes, some idea require a certain nuanced approach to fully comprehend, others however, do not. This is not one of them. I guess you can throw up you up your hand and cry "I can't decide, these waters are too ethically difficult to navigate, argh!" and forever cop out. It's easier.

That is not what he is saying though. He is arguing for a more rational and more balanced view than that advocated by the original article, which was quite "all-or-nothing". This does not mean that genocide is not bad, it certainly is. But because they committed genocide does not mean they did not have other good qualities and achievements as well.