Were Spaniards less brutal than North American colonizers? About the same?

[Methuselah]

Why more Indians exist in Spanish colonies?

[InmostLight]

Indigenous accounts describe them as equally brutal. The difference is that NA colonists opted for outright genocide, as well as forced steriliation and forced abortion into the 20th century, but SA colonizers used sexual slavery and rape to admix the native population with themselves.

SA natives were also more technologically advanced than NA natives, and they had civilizations instead of nomadic lifestyles. NA natives had the potlach ritual of destroying their belongings at the end of the calendar cycle, but SA natives had agriculture, permanent buildings, food preservation, etc-- things that help you stay alive

[RobocopReturns]

In the start they were same, but by 18th and 19th century, Spaniards were less brutal in my opinion, but one thing I have to mention; how many natives died from european diseases which Spaniard brought with them, the answer is: A LOTTTTT, I would say that was the worst thing for natives, more deadly than any bullet or cannon.

[Cristiano viejo]

Indigenous accounts describe them as equally brutal. The difference is that NA colonists opted for outright genocide, as well as forced steriliation and forced abortion into the 20th century, but SA colonizers used sexual slavery and rape to admix the native population with themselves.

Rape tale is an absurdity since it was not necessary. In the Amerindian cultures woman was merchandise object and when the Spaniards arrived the Amerindians offered their women as gift. This is very well documentated and the real mccoy was the Amerindian concubine of Hernán Cortés, the conquistador of Mexico.

[InmostLight]

Rape tale is an absurdity since it was not necessary. In the Amerindian cultures woman was merchandise object and when the Spaniards arrived the Amerindians offered their women as gift. This is very well documentated and the real mccoy was the Amerindian concubine of Hernán Cortés, the conquistador of Mexico.

What you described is true, but for a woman (or any person) to be given as a gift is not consensual, and it is still a form of slavery. The natives were just as awful to sell their women as the Spaniards were to accept them as property. The Spaniards could have said, "ew how barbaric to sell your women and girls for money!" but they didn't. Having sex with a women who was given to you as property is a form of rape, in my opinion, because she is robbed of the agency to say no. This is a moral thing that we can disagree on.

You're right that the colonizers weren't going out en masse and raping women in the jungle, though. It happened systematically through a process of slavery.

[Cristiano viejo]

What you described is true, but for a woman (or any person) to be given as a gift is not consensual, and it is still a form of slavery. The natives were just as awful to sell their women as the Spaniards were to accept them as property. The Spaniards could have said, "ew how barbaric to sell your women and girls for money!" but they didn't. Having sex with a women who was given to you as property is a form of rape, in my opinion. This is a moral thing that we can disagree on.

You're right that the colonizers weren't going out en masse and raping women in the jungle, though. It happened systematically through a process of slavery.

But Spaniards did not pay a single maravedí for these women. They were gifts, not sales. The most important thing is that these women were glad changing their old Amerindian owners for their new Spaniard ones, although simply because the latter were the new rulers.

As I mentioned, the concubine of Hernán Cortés was a gift for him, but she already has been gifted previously, from an Amerindian tribe to other.

Also I dont think Amerindian women were aware of their status as women. Feminism did not exist 500 years ago

[Petalpusher]

How much of those are fully natives though in south America, that is without identifying as native in the same way mulatoos and even quadroons identify as blacks, but really unadmixed natives, let's say +95%. From the studies i ve seen of SA it doesn't look like a big portion of the populations.

[Sebastianus Rex]

In the start they were same, but by 18th and 19th century, Spaniards were less brutal in my opinion, but one thing I have to mention; how many natives died from european diseases which Spaniard brought with them, the answer is: A LOTTTTT, I would say that was the worst thing for natives, more deadly than any bullet or cannon.

Yes, but that was completely involuntary. Likewise the black plague was brought to Europe from Asia and wiped out according to some estimates around 2/3 of the european population, yet we don't see europeans bitching about it or claiming for historical reparations.

PS. Welcome back friend.

[HannibaltheGreat]

Yes, but that was completely involuntary. Likewise the black plague was brought to Europe from Asia and wiped out according to some estimates around 2/3 of the european population, yet we don't see europeans bitching about it or claiming for historical reparations.

PS. Welcome back friend.

North American anglos did it on purpose a few times.
Theres a story of North americans purposely infecting furs or blankets with plague and then giving it to them to kill them off and remove them.

https://www.history.com/news/colonis...llpox-blankets

[HannibaltheGreat]

What you described is true, but for a woman (or any person) to be given as a gift is not consensual, and it is still a form of slavery. The natives were just as awful to sell their women as the Spaniards were to accept them as property. The Spaniards could have said, "ew how barbaric to sell your women and girls for money!" but they didn't. Having sex with a women who was given to you as property is a form of rape, in my opinion, because she is robbed of the agency to say no. This is a moral thing that we can disagree on.

You're right that the colonizers weren't going out en masse and raping women in the jungle, though. It happened systematically through a process of slavery.

Slavery was abolished in 1542 for natives.
They tried to continue an ecomienda system. But it had to do with labor. Not owning someone and trading people.

In peru, they had used the peruvian system they had before. Peruvians, instead of paying taxes, would work a few months throughout the year. Peruvians had their own homes to go back to and their own farms to finish after their term of labor for the year. The peruvians rather did labor for a few months than give up property and food.