[franciscop]

OTOH there's well known and documented anti-Spanish propaganda during the centuries by basically the rest of Europe (Protestants specifically), so I start to doubt claims from both sides (disclaimer: I'm Spaniard):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_legend

[shsbdksn]

The English and Elizabeth projected their crimes onto Spain.

Proof is in the pudding where is the percentage of natives highest? Where Spaniards colonized (Mexico, Bolivia, Peru)? Or the Brits (Virginia, Connecticut, all of Canada except Quebec)?

(Disclaimer, I'm... I don't know what I am)

[ywvcbk]

Presumably the population density in Mexico, Bolivia and Peru was much higher.

Also Spanish emigration into their colonies was quite low and they were much spread out.

e.g. more English/British people emigrated to the Americas in the 1600s than Spanish despite the fact that they controlled many times less territory.

[hecrogon]

Spanish empire caused a huge impact in the American continent but even so, the focus on seizing wealth and lands competed with the fact that the Spanish doctrine wanted to extend the Christendom. However anglo-saxos have established a more clear separation between colonizers and native population. I would compare what you mention about Mexico and Bolivia with how the decline of the native population in California accelerated after the independence of Mexico. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_Native_Californi...

[chucke]

Oh I don't dispute that. Despite the documented atrocities, the number of.native deaths by disease are greatly exaggerated, Charles V did write the precursor document of the human rights bill (after getting wind of what went about in Peru), and the Spaniards did promote marriages with natives. Studies of racial superiority the kind of which were prevalent at the end of the 19th century didn't come from Spain either.

History is not a black and white frame that we should either be proud or disgusted about. The fact that the Spanish state promotes such historical wash-ups says more about its current leaders.

FWIW the columbus expedition was considered a great failure at the time. He did fail to reach the indies by the west, and the couple of "indians" he brought to court was little compensation for the lack of lucrative spices. Reaching Lisbon first on the way back was also a disaster, prompting an immediate ultimatum by the portuguese by violation of a treaty, which led ultimately to the tordesilhas treaty which left the kingdom of castille and aragon out of the spice trade. He felt the failure so personally that he sailed back 4 times looking for a passage to the great sea beyond the new world, failing every time and becoming so embittered in the process, that he eventually lost his allies in court. It was only 40 years and lots of failed settlements after the columbus expedition that Spain hit proverbial jackpot and found the gold and silver which made the nation extremely wealthy in Europe, for a time. By then, the new world already had a new name: the Americas. The greatest of the hostorical humiliations, named after an ordinary italian cartographer, rather than the legendary captain which reached it in the first place.

Enshrining him as Spaniard will be of little consolation for his name.

[netdevnet]

You fail to understand that this is not about him (he's not alive to care about it) but about Spain, he is a proxy