Talk:Black Legend (Spain)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 September 2019 and 24 January 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Darlynl.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Making this less "white-legendy"

There are quite a few white-legendy aspects here, the idea that Spanish atrocities must only be talked about if we also mention atrocities by other countries at the same time runs through the whole article. I have removed some of the worst examples, false claims that only Spain had legal protections for native peoples, the use of the word "Excesses" which is a weasel word used to refer to war crimes committed by one's own side in a "just" war, the nonsensical claim that Spain was the first abolitionist state when it did not ban slavery until 1886. However, it really needs complete reconstruction, probably dividing into two clearly differentiated sections, one the early modern anti-Spanish propaganda in Northern Europe and one on the historiography of the supposed Black Legend. The first clearly exists, the second is mostly a Spanish perception of how the world sees it. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Mechanisms of the Black legend:

Decontextualization

by eliminating the context of a (true) fact, people tend to contextualize it in their own time and culture. Ex. "the Inquisition killed 5000 people". Without context, this true fact clearly seeks to impact negatively the reader. But to evaluate the true meaning of the sentence you have to give the context, and this means the "internal" context (those 5000 deaths were in 350 years of existence; the Spanish Inquisition not only was in charge of heretics, but also of bestiality, bigamy, incest, solicitation, coin counterfeiting, all crimes that could get death penalty at the time, everywhere), and also the "external" context. The external context is the treatment of religious intolerance in similar times and countries: the killing of Catholics by Henri VIII and Elisabeth I, the night of Saint Bartholomew, or the killing of witches in Germany. And this is what many authors writing about the black legend do, to allow a better understanding, and why it appears in the article.

Perspective change

making big things seem small, and small things seem big. The first laws protecting native Americans were the Laws of Burgos (1512), and the New Laws (1542), but you could argue that the first official protections of the natives were written down in the testament of Isabella I of Castile in 1504, only 12 years after the discovery of America. These laws were not worthless scraps of paper: ca. 1530 the office of the Protector of the Indians was created, and the activities of all officials, and governors were judged after the fact on so called trials of residence, that could well land with the officials in jail. Natives could and did participate in trials of residence against officials. Interesting are also the es:Resguardo indígena. All in all, natives were considered "free subjects of the Crown", and could not be enslaved, with rights equivalent to Castilians or other subjects at the time. This is the part that is "reduced" or ignored. The part that is "increased", and always mentioned, is the corruption and the exceptions, all the times these laws and protections failed to do their work, to the point where they are very often dismissed as ineffective. About making things bigger, could you please mention equivalent laws and protections for native populations introduced by other colonial powers before the 19th century. I haven't been able to find anything even later; on the contrary, native peoples were still exhibited in human zoos in the 20th century by other colonial powers.

Cheers, --Ecelan (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Notes:

Couldn't even find an article in the Wikipedia that offers the information. It would be a fun project to trail the black legend in the Wikipedia. You could objectively measure the words used in different articles to compare the treatment of the different colonial processes, and the history of different countries. It would make a nice paper. Something similar was done by Roland Bernhard (2013). Geschichtsmythen über Hispanoamerika. Entdeckung, Eroberung und Kolonisierung in deutschen und österreichischen Schulbüchern des 21. Jahrhunderts. Göttingen: V&R unipress. ISBN 978-3-8471-0204-5. with German schoolbooks.

Just a comment, in the bigger context of the Black Legend. Interesting how in Witch trials in the early modern period#Peak of the trials: 1560–1630 they mention the Basque witch trials (6 deaths) on the same level as the Trier witch trials (1000 deaths), the Würzburg witch trial (900 deaths), or the Bamberg witch trials (1000 deaths), but fail to mention trials in England, The Netherlands, Switzerland or France, that certainly had a higher death count than the Basque one.

To answer to your "false claims that only Spain had legal protections for native peoples", I could just have given you a reference where this is said, explaining was more fun.

• Indalecio Liévano Aguirre (2015). Los grandes conflictos sociales y económicos de nuestra historia: Tomo I. ISBN 9781507822371. En este camino llegó hasta el extremo, único en la historia de los poderes coloniales, de promulgar una legislación para las Indias más avanzada y generosa que la misma legislación a que estaban sometidos, en España, los peninsulares.
  This time, a Colombian historian. Less suspicious, isn't it?

Hi, I am not disputing that there was a humanitarian component to the intention of Spanish colonial laws, and that it was present as early as could reasonably be expected. The fact that there was extreme brutality at the same time, and that the process of conquest and incorporation into Spanish society involved "encomienda" that was little better than enslavement is also relevant when discussing this. However, the statement that was in the article that ONLY Spain protected indigenous populations is false. All colonial societies, even the Belgian Congo, had some formal legal protection of native populations.

As for the rest, I find it hard to see this as much more than a thin-skinned attitude. When the British talk about our witch burnings, our colonial genocides, or our religious executions, we do not feel the need to compare ourselves to another country. The Black Legend exists, primarily, in the Spanish self-image. --Boynamedsue (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Special linguistic categories

I have removed the following references and added citation tag:

https://uvadoc.uva.es/bitstream/handle/10324/25577/TFG_F_2017_111.pdf;jsessionid=4160B5EF22CC5D86A6A18A1EFD779377?sequence=1 https://www.elconfidencial.com/alma-corazon-vida/2015-09-25/fue-mucho-peor-los-genocidios-de-los-ingleses-contra-nuestra-leyenda-negra_1037058/

Neither text supports the claim in the text, which is that non-Spaniards create special linguistic categories for Spanish colonial behaviour to differentiate it from the behaviour of their colonialists, specifically using conquistador as an example. I don't personally agree with the argument, as for me conquistadors did have certain characteristics particular to their environment, culture and period, but I think it is an interesting point that would merit inclusion if it could be sourced. Unfortunately there is so much google noise around "leyenda negra" that I haven't managed to find a source in English or Spanish for the claim.

If it is OR, it is comparatively subtle, and sounds like something a scholar might have written. It doesn't seem to appear in the Spanish article though, which is an alarm bell for me.

I will leave the claim in the article for a couple of months, to see if anyone can source it. Then if nobody does, I will have a final search myself and cut the claim unless it can be supported.

--Boynamedsue (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The idea is mentioned by Roca Barea [1]:

La figura histórica de Isabel Barreto viene muy a propósito para acabar de una vez con esa idea tan abundantemente esparcida por los anglosajones de que España envió a América sólo conquerors, mientras que ellos iban con sus familias. Ergo eran settlers, no conquerors, lo cual ofrece una estampa mucho más amable, que sigue promocionándose en los libros de texto, para que no haya una generación a la que no se le incruste una imagen de los españoles como unos tíos con armadura y armas de fuego que iban arrasando todo lo que encontraban, frente a idílicas estampas de granjas de "colonos" ingleses al lado de un arroyito donde una señora con caperuza puritana le echa de comer a las gallinas. Véase para cuarto de primaria el manual estadounidense Reflections. La imagen buena frente a la imagen mala. Esta insistencia en la falta de mujeres no es un detalle sin importancia. Ha servido para justificar el mestizaje, que no había manera de obviar, no como la demostración de la falta de racismo y de capacidad para relacionarse con el Otro, sino por pura necesidad fisiológica, ya que no había españolas. Los españoles no habrían tenido más remedio que recurrir a las indias a falta de otras hembras, y no por procedimientos precisamente pacíficos.
"Isabel Barreto, la mujer almirante" (21-08-2018), María Elvira Roca Barea

You also can listen to her in YouTube expanding the same idea.

--Ecelan (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for writing. The quote you provide doesn't support the statement that was in the text. The text says the use of the word "conquistador" rather than "conqueror" was to create a separate category of Spanish conqueror, when they were in essence the same. I would suggest that Roca Barrea's argument is much more nuanced than that, from what you quote. If you wish to re-write the relevant paragraph quoting her by name and synthesising the opinion (I'm assuming she's a reliable source), I think it would be a good addition. --Boynamedsue (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

OMG. I have watched the video, is that person supposed to be a historian? Serious question, because she doesn't talk like one.

There are copious English language primary sources on the Spanish Armada, the contrast between settlement and elite conquest is entirely valid, because that is what happened. The Spanish took over people, the English took over land. The word conquistador is not the same as conqueror, and we use the first for different situations. There is an interesting contrast to be made in modenr American popular history's view of their colonisation, and its roots in 19th century concepts of race and what was known as 'miscegenation'. But she isn't doing that, she just wants people to shut up about Spain conquering things. --Boynamedsue (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I will not touch this article with a ten feet pole. The black legend is way too prevalent.

I had a complete rebuttal of most of what you are saying (including the encomienda), but I'll reduce it to one thing, as this is not the place to have an extended discussion:

"When the British talk about our witch burnings, our colonial genocides, or our religious executions, we do not feel the need to compare ourselves to another country." vs. "The Spanish took over people, the English took over land." Astonishing. Well yes, you can say it like that if you consider that all inhabitants were conveniently "eliminated" before; there was only land left to take over. Just one example of many: after about 100 years of Spanish rule, in only 60 years, the US "eliminated" 150 000 natives from California. So "England took over land" should be "England (and later the US) exterminated systematically native Americans they encountered in North America", if we follow the black legend type historiography. Why would the US and English historiography try to compare anything again?

As you yourself have demonstrated, the Spanish Black Legend is perfect to hide behind.

--Ecelan (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

P.S. "The word conquistador is not the same as conqueror". It certainly is. One is literally the translation of the other. The question is, why would English speakers feel the need to take over a Spanish word for a concept that already existed in English? Interesting is also the use of the word "pioneer". I recommend you also observe the use of the adjectives "Spanish", "English", and "European" in expressions related to the colonization of America; it is often noticeable: "Spanish" and "European" for negative messages, "English" for neutral or positive ones.

P.S.² The day the famines in India or Ireland under British rule, the California Genocide, the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland, the Mau Mau Uprising, or the extermination of the Catholics in Britain are as known as the "Spanish Inquisition" or the "Spanish Genocide in the Americas", we'll talk again.

If you feel the article can be improved, please do so. It should be done from a neutral point of view (i.e. describing the BL as a theory rather than a fact, attributing opinions etc, clarifying minority/majority positions). To my mind it is still excessively focused on advocating the position that the BL is a serious factor in the modern day, but sourced additions in a neutral tone are the way forward.

Re, the English conquering land and killing and driving off the people, instead of the Spanish conquering populations and making them work for them. The statement I made was with regards to your precise argument about the Americas, linked to that of the dodgy historian who appears in the article. The English established a population in the new world, on the basis of moving whole families to settle land. The Spanish tended to take over existing populations, mixing with them, usually through the male line. There are exceptions to both statements but they generally reflect facts. I personally consider both to have been completely immoral conquests, that would never have happened in a just world. You make the classic mistake of the nationalist in assuming everybody else is also one. I am fully aware of the United Kingdom's shameful history of imperialism, I don't cry about people mentioning it.

Re the word "conquistador" pl "conquistadors". These words are English words, their etymology in Spanish is irrelevant. Its English meaning is "​one of the Spanish people who took control of Mexico and Peru by force in the sixteenth century". Boynamedsue (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

BTW, the argument that there was no particularity in the early Spanish conquerors of the New World, and that use of a separate word to describe them constitutes a form of hispanophobia is, to my mind, completely wrong. But if a reliable source can be found to which this opinion can be attributed, then it should be in the text. Otherwise it is just original research, and remains outside the scope of the article. --Boynamedsue (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, no women immigrated, just exceptions:

• https://www.abc.es/historia/abci-historia-borrada-leyenda-negra-mujeres-acompanaron-cristobal-colon-america-201901240233_noticia.html?ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

"Se calcula por los registros de la Corona que en el siglo XVI 45.327 colonos llegaron a América, de los cuales hasta 10.118 eran mujeres. Su historia es poco o nada conocida [...] el olvido se debe a la leve memoria de los españoles y, sobre todo, a la alargada mano de la Leyenda Negra, que ha difuminado su presencia para que los violentos y sádicos conquistadores no parezcan demasiado humanos. En el imaginario popular, los británicos que llegaron a América siguen siendo pacíficos y familiares colonos (palabra de raíz griega que significa labrador), mientras los españoles fueron sádicos colonizadores (palabra procedente de imperialismo, un fenómeno propio del siglo XIX) en busca de oro y sexo."

• https://elpais.com/cultura/2012/05/18/actualidad/1337346325_472392.html

"Una de tantas mujeres que protagonizaron gestas épicas en el Nuevo Mundo y olvidos legendarios en el Viejo. América no solo fue cosa de hombres. Pisando los talones de Colón se movilizaron un tropel de pioneras como Isabel Barreto"

• https://www.casamerica.es/sociedad/el-verdadero-papel-de-las-mujeres-en-la-conquista-de-america
• https://www.labrujulaverde.com/2012/07/mujeres-en-la-conquista-y-colonizacion-de-america-exposicion

"Aunque una buena parte de la historiografía clásica extranjera, especialmente la anglosajona y la francesa, ha presentado la presencia de España en América como una tarea exclusivamente de conquista a hierro y fuego y, por tanto, obra exclusivamente de soldados, se trata de una visión interesada que pretendía ensalzar a los suyos: los españoles habrían desarrollado una labor militar frente a la colonizadora de ellos. [...] Esto se plasmaba en la concepción de una presencia exclusivamente masculina, o sea, ejércitos, frente a la emigración de familias como las del Mayflower y su labor civilizadora."

• https://www.abc.es/cultura/abci-mujeres-mestizos-amuletos-arqueologos-rompen-mitos-sobre-elite-inicio-imperio-espanol-202005100152_noticia.html

"Excavaciones en [la catedral de] Panamá la Vieja muestran [...] El 60 por ciento de los enterramientos corresponde a mujeres jóvenes, negras, mestizas y europeas, según los análisis de isótopos de estroncio y oxígeno, acompañados del estudio del ADN. [...] He ahí la clave, sin los clichés ni los prejuicios de la leyenda negra. Una historia común. Los ricos mestizos, las acomodadas africanas en aquel Panamá que toleraba la movilidad racial y la relevancia económica muy lejos de la visión racista y violentísima negrolegendaria."

es:Manuel Lucena Giraldo: "En la medida en que los investigadores que lo sustentan, coordinados de manera magistral por la profesora Bethany Aram, de la Universidad Pablo de Olavide de Sevilla, han sido capaces de probar mediante sofisticados análisis genéticos que los restos humanos hallados en el cementerio de la catedral de Panamá la Vieja, destruida a resultas del ataque alevoso del pirata inglés Morgan en 1671, tienen componente africano, la evidencia histórica se impone. Donde solo debía haber «mala gente» de la elite blanca (o sea, españoles rabiosos) resulta que aquello está lleno de mulatas se supone que ricas y de mestizos cargados de plata (del Perú)."

"You make the classic mistake of the nationalist in assuming everybody else is also one." So, I'm a nationalist, but you are neutral. And the Spanish historian is dodgy. OK.

--Ecelan (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a forum, but I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make here. The genetic evidence is extremely clear for most places in South America, European men had children with native and African women and had a continued reproductive advantage throughout, and beyond, the colonial period. At no point have I said that no Spanish women came to the new world, I said that the Spanish predominantly conquered populations and used them for their profit, whereas the English in North America were interested in taking the land and settling it as families. The data you present does not contradict that. If you think any of the stuff you quote should be in the article, put it, in attributed to the author. --Boynamedsue (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

No es demasiado neutral lo escrito: Lo españoles "convencieron" a los jefes del imperio inca, azteca o maya, para crear el mismo sistema social que tenían en su pais. No era su "beneficio" al estilo de La Compañia de las Indias inglesa.

Su aporte fué el envío de todo tipo de vegetales, animales y profesionales que no existían en América: Herreros, carpinteros, etc.y tampoco tenían ninguna exclusiva en las semillas aportadas: Trigo, cebada, centeno, frutales, cerdos, conejos o aves eran la forma más rápida de crear la misma civilización dado que vivirían con ellos.

Otro tema es Inglatera en Estados Unidos: Se encontraron con tribus pequeñas y aisladas donde no existía una civilización unida y una inmensidad de tierra. Bien es cierto que pudieron enseñarles a esas tribus lo mismo que

los españoles, pero en su lugar procedieron a masacrarlos y a su medio de vida principal (los bisontes) y poblar con emigrantes europeos todo ese territorio, empezando por Canadá para la exportación de pieles.

La leyenda negra es comparativamente bastante más oscura en otros invasores. 83.165.120.56 (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

BTW Barrea is a nationalist historian, from what I have heard she is obsessed with what the rest of the world thinks of Spain, rather than what happened in history. I would put the video you linked in the same category as those nutters who think Columbus was Catalan. Maybe she hasn't developed the symptoms as badly as they have, but she's got the same virus. --Boynamedsue (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The armies that defeated the Aztecs were mostly local indigenous enemies, not Europeans. The lack of immunity to Old World diseases wiped out a larger portion of the indigenous population, including allies, rather than warfare. In many instances diseases ran ahead of European incursions and decimated the population before a European had set foot in the area. So this arguably unintended biological genocide is what enabled opportunistic foreign invaders to take advantage of the situation.

In that sense it’s not really comparable to wars in Europe where neither side involved was having to contend with soldiers dying from diseases or being physically incapacitated from pandemics while engaged in battle at the same time. It’s for that reason, not because of any supposed European benevolence, that describing these events as ‘conquest’ are somewhat of a misnomer.

Moreover the catastrophic effect that pandemics had on the native population allowed Westernized mestizos, who had better immunity and outnumbered those of European ancestry early in the colonial period, to thrive and prosper at the expense of the indigenous population and gradually assimilated, voluntarily of by force, the indigenous population spread across Latin America.

This was a long process as after the fall of the Aztecs, many indigenous people were not under European rule and remained autonomous for centuries and by that stage mestizos would have comprised the majority of the inhabitants in European colonies. Therefore the portrayal that this drawn out assimilation process was a solely European effort is not entirely accurate either.

Also there are many parts in Latin America where the population is overwhelmingly indigenous, such as most of Bolivia, Peru, Southern Mexico, etc... Not every place has populations that could be described as being evenly mestizo in ancestry, particularly in regards to European ancestry. European ancestry has been diluted in the general population (20% or less) and more commonly found (50% or more) among the well off, due to a bias of choosing lighter skinned individuals for marriage since colonization began. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.117.190 (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Rewrite of the Modern Era and Controversy section

I am currently rewriting these sections to include the debate on whether the BL currently exists, hopefully to include points of view from Barea, Garcia Carcel and Villacanas. I have had to cut a lot of OR from that section, and quite a bit of duplication, but it will expand again as I get hold of texts from the main names. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the following from the text, as there is no evidence that the author connected their analysis of the American anti-Spanish propaganda of the Spanish-American war to a generalised Black Legend. It is stated in the article as general fact about the Black Legend when it actually relates to a very specific period.

Image makers typically pictured Spain as a pirate or demon, surrounded by symbols of gothic horror such as skeletons, bloody knives, and skulls.

In order to make the text accord with the source it claims to be based on in would have to be changed to the following:

American Image makers during the Spanish American war pictured Spain as a pirate or demon, surrounded by symbols of gothic horror such as skeletons, bloody knives, and skulls.

Putting this in the text would count as OR, as it would be the wikiusers synthesising arguments. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Reorganisation

I've just completed a reorganisation of the page, its structure was weak, with lots of mini-sections with little content and duplication of content. The internal coherence of various sections had been weakened by lots of mini-edits over time, so I worked to reintroduce that. Over the course of the reorganisation, I had to delete quite a bit of OR, duplication, and claims not justified by their source. As there was often a reference, it could look like deletion of sourced material, so I have included the removed sections here with its rationale.

Original Research

King Philip, at the time also king of Portugal, was accused of cruelty for his hanging of supporters of António, Prior of Crato, the rival contender for the throne of Portugal, on yardarms on the Azores islands following the Battle of Ponta Delgada.

Unsourced, I couldn't find a reliable source that links this specific incident to the Black Legend, so it was removed.

The best selling book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind systematically uses Spain for negative examples, such as the effects of colonialism, while turning to other countries, such as the United Kingdom and India, to highlight the positive consequences of imperialism.

This is unsupported by a source, I searched for one that linked Sapiens to the Black Legend, both in English and Spanish, but found nothing.

* References to Black Legend constructs are currently used in Argentina to argue in favor of protectionist policies against Spanish companies.

The source is an article that the user who first wrote it believes to use a Black Legend trope, rather than quoting a scholar who claims it does. Therefore, OR

In 2012, the British TV show Lonely Planet broadcast an episode about the Age of Discovery, in which Spanish, Portuguese, English, Dutch, and Turkish explorers were depicted. Only in the case of the Spaniards was any violent or negative action shown, devoting most of the time of the segment to how they killed and looted, while no mention was made of any such things by the English or Dutch, nor was the Portuguese slave trade shown. Additionally, none of the main exploration or scientific trips by Spain were shown. There was also no mention of the percentage of Native Population in each of the former colonies that could balance the lack of violence shown regarding central European nations.

Unsourced OR

Unsupported by the source that it is linked to

Image makers typically pictured Spain as a pirate or demon, surrounded by symbols of gothic horror such as skeletons, bloody knives, and skulls.

The source relates to the specific context of contemporary US propaganda of the Spanish American war, it does not link it to the Black Legend. It certainly does not merit the phrase "Image makers" and "Typically" suggesting this behaviour is generic when the source does not.

This allowed for other countries to gain Native American support due to the propaganda against the Spanish on their treatment of natives and those that do not follow Catholic beliefs.

No mention of Native Americans in the source.

The black legend is cited in films such as Victoria & Abdul.

The article linked does not mention the Black Legend, therefore would class as OR.

regarding the unquestioning acceptance of unchecked numbers of injured that turned out to be false

The reason Josep Borell believed the Black Legend to be applicable to coverage of the Catalan protests is not mentioned in the source, injury numbers do not appear.

 Spanish proponents of the prevalence of the Black Legend point out that the Black Legend view of Spain and Spanish history, as well as its anti-Catholic elements, are common in popular culture, such as in films like Elizabeth, whereas popular culture references to similar deeds by other colonial powers are scarce or idealized in movies such as Victoria & Abdul.

The source does not mention the film Elizabeth, nor does it mention the Black Legend.

Biased

I only removed one unsourced paragraph on account of bias.

The image of a fanatical, overly-Catholic Spain has little to do with medieval Spain, where cohabitation, relative tolerance, and frequent intermarriage was the norm. Muslims in Christian territory were, for the most part, allowed to keep their religion; Jews held high public office. Scholarly cooperation with Arabic and Jewish scholars was common since the 11th century, and Jewish professors reportedly taught at the University of Salamanca.

This seems to be a little irrelevant to the topic, given that the Black Legend is specifically linked to the post-medieval period (pretty much by definition, 1492 and all that). I don't feel that, for example, the fact that Spain treated Jews better than most of Europe in 1350 is more important than the fact it treated them far worse in 1650. Perhaps this was once part of a more subtle argument, but the way the page has evolved it looked odd and declamatory. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it did treat the Jews better than most of Europe and it is easily sourced. Not really sure removing the paragraph is correct, its better to source it.--Php2000 (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Php2000 I agree that the fact Jews in Spain were better treated than Jews anywhere else in Western Europe in the Medieval period is very easily sourced, but to say this is relevant to the Black Legend is OR, unless part of some broader argument supported by a RS. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Pedro Insua (2018). "España contra el fantasma de Sefarad". 1492: España contra sus fantasmas (in Spanish). Planeta. ISBN 978-84-344-2790-7.

--Ecelan (talk) 12:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so add the specific points he makes to the article, attributing the opinion to the author. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

"Alleged" historiographical tendency

I see no reason in the article to describe the historiographical tendency to be "alleged" (in "The Black Legend (Spanish: La leyenda negra), or the Spanish Black Legend, is an alleged historiographical tendency"), therefore I propose to remove it. --Luigi Albert Maria (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

There are several very important scholars who dispute its existence, Benjamin Keen and the group around Ricardo Garcia Carcel being the most prominent. There are also a very large number of scholars who argue it existed in the past but no longer does. It violates NPOV to state that it exists in the intro. --Boynamedsue (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

A fecha de hoy se siguen tirando estatuas de Cristóbal Colón en las ciudades americanas cada 12 de Octubre. Y los argumentos son usados por grupos políticos de izquierdas, EXCEPTUANDO a un solo jefe de estado: Fidel Castro.

Todo el resto de gobernantes de latinoamérica de izquierdas reclaman la devolución de su oro, evidentemente para arrimar el voto de las diferentes etnias de cada pais y no por razones éticas. 83.165.120.56 (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Has anyone seen the Spanish language version of this article?

Its amazing and amazingly sourced and balanced. We should be simply translating it here. It completely removes the need to edit war on this article since it pretty much encompasses everything anyone has ever said on the topic. --Php2000 (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup of English

There have been a few good additions to the article over the last few months, but some English mistakes have slipped in which I am sorting out. There is a small comprehension problem with one paragraph, I'm not really sure what it means as the English is a little problematic due to translation. I have left a message at the talk page of the user who made the edit so we can rework it to include. Text below:

As she defines the traits common to all black legends affecting all empires, and the common claims they make about all this different political entities, she points at the beginning stages of a black legend regarding United Estates of America that would follow a similar pattern to that of other empires.

Boynamedsue (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

"Antiespaña" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Antiespaña. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 2#Antiespaña until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

War with the Netherlands

'After years of unrest in the Low Countries, the summer of 1567 saw renewed violence in which Dutch Calvinists defaced statues and decorations in Catholic monasteries and churches.'

The year 1567 is clearly an erratum. The Iconoclastic Fury took place one year earlier.

'... the wave of disorderly attacks in the summer of 1566 ...' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beeldenstorm) --31.4.189.34 (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Map

The relevance of a map of Spanish colonial possessions provides useful information to the reader. A map of Spanish universities seems to bear no relation to the topic of the article. Is it perhaps an attempt to say "look, the Spanish did good things in Latin America"? Genuine question, I don't know, it is so left field it is hard to understand and is likely to confuse readers. As it is, I am reverting to consensus, which was the map of Spanish colonial possessions, as part of the BRD cycle.

Boynamedsue (talk) 09:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

This wrong map has already been discussed ad infinitum and is not accepted for the Spanish Empire. There is already a correct one in the article so I will remove it. Let's focus the discussion on whether or not this article should include information on the actual facts of the Spanish Empire versus the anti-Spanish propaganda. Vicentemovil (talk) 10:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Fine, no problem leaving the map out, the university map is clearly inappropriate. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

You have done wrong to remove the discussion notice. The problem with this article is not solved, it is a non-neutral article because you remove factual information, such as the universities built by the Spanish empire because it dismantles the black legend. This article is not a neutral article. Vicentemovil (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I would like you to explain to me why you think that the black legend reflects the reality of the Spanish empire.Your words should be explained: "Is it perhaps an attempt to say "look, the Spanish did good things in Latin America"? Genuine question". --Vicentemovil (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe that this article should confront the black legend with the factual facts of the Spanish empire, but if you remove or delete them then this article is not neutral because it does not allow that explanation. Vicentemovil (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

This article attempts to balance the differing viewpoints of scholars on the Spanish Black Legend, and is very well sourced. Throwing in our own opinions like "the Spanish opened universities" is WP:OR. Confronting the "Black Legend" with facts is fine, where it comes entirely from a reliable source, not our own interpretations, is attributed when it is opinion, and is balanced with opposing views when it is necessary.

There is a great deal of debate among scholars upon the nature and even existence of the Black Legend, which is detailed in the article. It may be there are balance issues, though I don't see any myself at the moment. Could you specifically detail the changes you wish to see made, or make an edit which does so? Otherwise there is no case for retaining the tag, as you have not justified it. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Just to recap, there is consensus above that both the university and the previous map should be removed. Why have you reverted the map? Also, there is no consensus on the introduction of the word "fictitious" in the description of the engraving, which you have also reverted again. You need to stop edit-warring and follow the discussion procedure.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not a matter of your or my opinion.Wikipedia:No original research The references consulted say that Spain created 25 universities in the Americas and 2 in the Philippines.España contra su leyenda negra Mitos, agravios y discursos. Javier Rubio Donzé. 2023 From these universities up to the time of independence, 150,000 graduates of all races graduated, i.e. multiracial. Imperiofobia y leyenda negra Roma, Rusia, Estados Unidos y el Imperio español. Elvira Roca Barea 2022

I attach the links for you to check the references that are in Spanish, your language, to confirm that this is what these books dealing with the black legend say.

This information should be part of the article because it is very relevant information in books dealing with the black legend: Spain created 25 universities and trained 150,000 multiracial graduates in its Spanish-American universities.

Your two objections to the consensus were: 1. that the information was a personal opinion and 2. that it was not part of the bibliography of the black legend. I have presented you with both references with quotes from textual books that you can read that refute your two arguments.

P.S. I am keeping the alert up to attract more views on how we are providing evidence and the validity in which we could reach a consensus.

It is time for you also to justify your position with some bibliography that can refute the books I have presented in this discussion. I request you to present your bibliography. --Vicentemovil (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

PS. The bibliography says that engravings of Theodor de Bry are fictions that are appended later, and are not part of the book of Las Casas, which relates events that the priest never saw in first person but heard about. 1Bolívar y la gestación de la patria criolla Elipse de una contradicción De José Rodríguez Iturbe · 20232 .España contra su leyenda negra Mitos, agravios y discursos. Javier Rubio Donzé 2023 Vicentemovil (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, it may be warranted to include details of Rubio Donze's argument, however, the image gives undue prominence to the opinion of one recent scholar who is not a qualified historian, merely an individual with a history degree. The images at the top of the page should be neutral, rather than examples of one scholar's point of view.

I still disagree that the image should appear. If you want to add details of Rubio Donze's argument in the appropriate section, feel free to do that and I will look in more detail at the arguments and the validity of the source.

As it is however, there is still no consensus that this map should appear, as it is WP:UNDUE to illustrate only the work of such a minor figure. There is also no consensus that the word "fictitious" should appear, as it suggests that the Spanish did not feed people to dogs, when this is a very well-documented practice.

I am making a final request for you to revert the above items, which are new additions by you which do not have consensus here. If you will not do so, I will report you to the edit-warring noticeboard, as you have forced your preferred text into an article without consensus. I have taken into account that you might not be familiar with the rules here, but my patience is at an end. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

We are not talking about whether or not the Spanish used dogs. We are talking about whether Bry's drawings are a product of his imagination or not. The text I provided says that De Bry's drawings are a figment of his imagination. The text you provide does not talk about Bry's drawings. So your reference nothing say De Bry's drawings. The relationship you establish between De Bry's draw the use of dogs by Spaniards in Americas is already a product of your original idea. The books say that De Bry's use his imagination.

I have already refuted your two objections and now you come up with a new third objection, WP:UNDUE. You also don't give any bibliography on the matter. It just seems like you are fine with drawings of rabid dogs but you find it bad to draw a map of universities. I have proven already that the creation of universities is a mayor subject of books that deal with the black legend. --Vicentemovil (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

With respect, it was only in your last but one post that I understood why you thought the universities are even relevant. So far you have posted one scholar who talks about universities. I don't agree with that scholar's view that founding universities has any connection to the Black Legend, but I am happy for it to be mentioned with the due prominence attributed to the scholar who brings it up. But still, I think the map is irrelevant and the text does not attribute the opinion and is therefore using wiki voice to give an opinion.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

To deal with the "imagined scene" question, I have kept the version added by @Harold the Sheep: but added clarification that similar events are historically documented.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Disputed tag

If there is disputed information in the article, either edit it or say what it is here. A disputed tag shouldn't be added without any context. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I have put up the non-neutrality sign for the reasons given in the preceding discussion. Please do not remove it until the end of the discussion. Vicentemovil (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll leave it there for now, but you will need to make an attempt to justify it, or there is no consensus that it should be there and it will be removed. --Boynamedsue (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

So far, the only substantive complaint about the neutrality of the article is from a user who wants to see a map detailing one non-academic scholar's opinion added to the top of the page. Giving such prominence to a map detailing a single scholar's opinion in an article which contains the opinions of dozens of scholars would violate WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. It is also not a valid reason to display an NPOV tag. There is no consensus for this tag to appear, and no comments or arguments in favour of non-neutrality have been made for several days, so I have removed it. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

See comments above. The changes you have made are unilateral and without consensus. Vicentemovil (talk) 08:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I return to Harold's edition, which is the one we have in common. We have the first point of consensus in this point. The rest of the additions: the place the map should be, and your comment about dogs should have a consensus before being added. Vicentemovil (talk) 08:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

If the imagined scenes were in fact based on a documented practice, there is nothing wrong with adding that. The caption still indicated that it was anti-Spanish propaganda. I can't see how the removal of the map is an NPOV matter. Harold the Sheep (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a primary source. First of all the article is a primary research source that tries to explain a Nahualt codex that talks about an alleged punishment, according to that art researcher. Casas' account has nothing to do with the codex, and this story of Casas another primary source (an story about what he said he heard from others), must be explained with a secondary source in addition. A hypothesis of an investigation about something else, a codex, does not support the questioned account of Las Casas, and much less that the artist De Bry never saw any of it. Nor was he ever in America, nor did he ever see the Nahualt codex. On the assumption that this research is correct or not for a secondary source to be presented (Bibliography required). You surprise me Harold, it seems that you are fine with De Bry's drawing in the foreground, with a text on the basis of an inference, assumption or an original idea WP:OR (see above) about a primary sourcen WP:UNDUE(see above).

But a material fact: 25 universities and 150 thousand indigenous or multiracial college graduates supported by secondary sources (See above) should go in other place. This is the reason to remove the map is not neutral NPOV: because the map of universities is explained in the secondary sources (books) that explain the black legend, and expose that there were 25 universities and 150,000 indigenous and multiracial graduates. What the map says, an objective fact that cannot be questioned. And the drawing of the map of universities exposes the same thing that the books of the black legend say, which is the subject of the article. Harold, you have yet to give an explanation as to why you removed the drawing of the map of universities and its references to secondary sources. You removed it without explanation.--Vicentemovil (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Harold xplains in his edit summary, there is no consensus for the map. There is still no consensus, as it is WP:UNDUE to illustrate the view of one minor non-academic scholar at the top of the page with a map. You have consensus to add a summary of the scholars' opinion to the section detailing different scholars' views on the Black Legend, attributed to them. Why do you choose not to do this? Boynamedsue (talk) 06:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the inclusion of any text that implies the engraving scene is fictional unless text appears which clarifies that the practice of feeding people to dogs is historical. To do this would be to imply that the Spanish feeding people to dogs was an invention of the BL rather than a historical fact. per BRD, this text must go back to the last stable version, a change I have now made.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

By the way, De las Casas and the Nahuatl codex are not the only evidence for the Spaniards feeding people to dogs. It was a widespread practice attested by many contemporary Spanish sources. You can read this for the best summary. It details how the Spanish used dogs in war and as a method of execution. It also gives evidence of the Spanish simply using Indians as food for their dogs. Any text that does not include this clarification is deliberately misleading. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The use of war dogs, or feeding dogs with human flesh as you say, has been a practice of war and terror from the Egyptians, Rome, the Hundred Years' War, to the Conquest of the Desert of the Argentine Republic (19th century), through the early years of the Spanish conquistadors until it was prohibited.

Does the literature supporting the use of dogs in war and terror (See above) support your own interpretation of De Bry's drawing? Not at all.WP:OR You cannot be a primary source. You cannot interpret De Bry's drawings. You can reproduce what a historian says about De Bry's drawings. But you have not been able to provide this required bibliography (Bibliography required)

The map of universities is referenced, not only by what you say,NPOV but there is a solid bibliography corroborating that 25 universities were created in Hispanic America and 2 universities in the Spanish Philippines and 150,000 indigenous and multiracial graduates. See:

• España contra su leyenda negra Mitos, agravios y discursos. Javier Rubio Donzé. 2023
• Imperiofobia y leyenda negra Roma, Rusia, Estados Unidos y el Imperio español. Elvira Roca Barea 2022
• El poder de la universidad en América Latina Acosta 2020
• Historia de las universidades modernas en Hispanoamérica Enrique González y González 1995

--Vicentemovil (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

You probably need to ask yourself a few questions when you are on talk pages explaining why feeding people to dogs is no big deal. Execution by dogs and the murder of human beings to feed dogs was not considered normal at the time, which is why it was included in propaganda works.

But this is not a forum. You specifically wanted the text to cause readers to think that feeding people to dogs never happened, when it actually did. From your posts it seems you were previously unaware of this, you aren't now.

I know that universities were founded in the Americas, but I don't think it warrants a map on the page. The opinions of right-wing Spanish nationalist scholars should be included in the text, and you can add them if you want. But no map, it is WP:UNDUE as it gives more credence to their opinions than real experts such as Carcel. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe that you were unaware that your country, the Argentine Republic, in the 19th century was engaged in war crimes in the conquest of Patagonia, using War dogs against Indigenous peoples. I also think it is good that this is known. However, this is not the point. You cannot dismiss any historian who refutes the black legend by labeling it as extreme right-wing Spanish nationalist (fascist). Be careful because these libels may be the subject of a criminal complaint. The tag will remain because your argumentation is not even an argumentation. --Vicentemovil (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Sais dw i, bach. This is the problem with nationalists, you just suppose everyone else is one too. I'm well aware of the many historical, and occasional present, atrocities caused by my actual country, the UK. I am glad that they should be studied and analysed by historians, and I don't shout "Black Legend" every time someone mentions them.

As it stands, there are two voices on this talkpage which state there should be no tag, and one which says the tag should remain, therefore the consensus is to remove the tag. It would be removed anyway, as it is the person adding to the page who must seek consensus, and no consensus for the tag has ever existed.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Theory of User Boynamedsue

The user Boynamedsue has been edit warring and vandalising on this article for more than a year now, with impunity.

He has been adding the word "theory" into the article without proper Wp:Sources. He has removed the citation needed request, at least 3 times before.

Please read the last for lines of the current version of the lead again and think whetherit makes Wikipedians look like idiots who are at odds with the scholarship and research: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1208778294 "Although most scholars agree that the term Black Legend might be useful to describe 17th and 18th century anti-Spanish propaganda, there is no consensus on whether the phenomenon persists in the present day."

It looks like Boynamedsue is in denialism about the black legend, it was just a conspiracy theory or whatever for the user, while the article itself says "most scholars agree" the black legend was practised.

If boynamedsue cannot produce sources for the black legend being a mere unproven theory made to malign the alrighteous Dutch colonial empire or another party, rather than something that was actually practiced according scholars and research; he should held accountable for abusing Wikipedia according to WP:Agenda and WP:Bias 2409:4071:6EC1:4B49:DEA:27BB:F826:B48A (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

If you think this article has Bias problems in edit warring, then i suggest to bring out this matter into WikiProject Spain task forces. their active members is Takashi kurita (talk · contribs) or Buistr (talk · contribs) to consult regarding this matter

or u could also contact Dutch military history taskforces, i think Arnoutf (talk · contribs) also credible enough to consult

Don't forget to consult the active Administrators too before you taking act. Ahendra (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)