Which is why I called the US an empire. — Vera Mont

Imperialism does not imply empire, it implies hegemon, otherwise it is an etymological fallacy. The view of Biden's land as an empire is particularly silly when one considers the fact that an empire's people enjoy some benefits from the supposed empire, while that country's people is completely subject to international corporations and Israel, undermining to some extent the idea that it is sovereign or at least that it is democratic. Also, there is no emperor. A country without a king is not a kingdom. Brazil and Mexico were empires, they had emperors — emperors from European noble houses, by the way.

And they're not complaining about their and their ancerstors' treatment by the current and past European regimes? — Vera Mont

What current European regime? Spain's arrival was a great thing for Mexico, for example, otherwise in a case of isolation from the rest of the world¹, they would not be too far past the Iron Age today and likely still be conducing human sacrifices.

1 – Which we, the so enlightened of the 21st century grant to the North Sentinelese.

Imperialism does not imply empire — Lionino

In that case, I need a Newspeak dictionary. Nobody promised that economic and military imperialism would never backfire. Ask the Islamophobic French nationalist political faction, and they'll say the present ethnic problem in their country was caused by the EU's magnanimity. Ask a historian, and you'd get a very different answer.

In that case, I need a Newspeak dictionary. — Vera Mont

A French dictionary instead, as those two are French words. Empire is a type of government and also speaks to the make-up of the State, imperialism is foreign policy, one does not imply the other, but the other implies one.

Ask the Islamophobic French nationalist political faction, and they'll say the present ethnic problem in their country was caused by the EU's magnanimity. Ask a historian, and you'd get a very different answer. — Vera Mont

The Muslim issue in France evidently has a strong link to Merkel and the EU. Historians don't tend to get stuff right when it comes to things that are not events far into the past — my history teachers would boast that they can't manipulate fractions, which is 3rd grade mathematics.

Right, let's just ignore how the CIA literally trained the members of the al-Qaeda and the rise of ISIS was a direct consequence of Obama's policy. Stuff just happens for no reason. — Lionino

It wasn't a rational thing to do. You seem to want to be in this category of rationalising 9/11. That is your choice.

Being anti-USA enough to think that 9/11 can be rationalised is (particularly in light of the intervening years and what effect they ahve had on the region) to say the least, a random view to take.

while that country's people is completely subject to international corporations and Israel — Lionino

Nevermind.

You seem to want to be in this category of rationalising 9/11. — AmadeusD

I am not rationalising 9/11 especially because I don't even know what that could mean. I am sure the jihadi had reasons in their mind to do it, but I don't care about it. There were reasons why 9/11 happened and one of those reasons was the country's involvement in the Middle East. 9/11 did not randomly happen. That much should be obvious, unless one believes in spontaneous generation.

Historians don't tend to get stuff right when it comes to things that are not events far into the past — Lionino

The events of the past have little to do with manipulating fractions, but the events of the far distant past did precede the events of the recent past, which preceded the events of the present, with no evident line of demarcation between sets of events.
One might even conclude that they constitute cause ----> effect.

Spain's arrival was a great thing for Mexico, for example, otherwise in a case of isolation from the rest of the world¹, they would not be too far past the Iron Age today and likely still be conducing human sacrifices. — Lionino

Indeed, Bartolome de las Cases provides a contemporary description of the many great things done for the indigenous people of Mexico by the Spanish after they arrived.

And it's a credit to the Spanish, and later the Monroe-driven US policy, that no Mexican citizens are sacrificed today. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/mexicos-long-war-drugs-crime-and-cartels

the Monroe-driven US policy, that no Mexican citizens are sacrificed today — Vera Mont

Surely this has to be sarcasm.

Busted. I console myself that at least my co-sarcaster got away with it.

https://elpais.com/internacional/2011/12/05/actualidad/1323117186_486554.html
https://archivo.eluniversal.com.mx/nacion-mexico/2014/impreso/la-guerra-secreta-de-la-dea-en-mexico-212050.html
https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/01/12/why-is-the-united-states-backing-mexican-drug-gangs/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs
Without bringing the involvement of the CIA in the rise of cartels.

Indeed, Bartolome de las Cases provides a contemporary description of the many great things done for the indigenous people of Mexico by the Spanish after they arrived. — Ciceronianus

Like medicine, modern infrastructure and agriculture, and technology in general that allowed them to multiply further than it could ever been possible within the Iron Age.

Like medicine, modern infrastructure and agriculture, and technology in general that allowed them to multiply further than it could ever been possible within the Iron Age. — Lionino

Well, consider what was written by Bernal Diaz del Castillo, one of the conquistadors accompanying Cortez, regarding the Spaniards first impression on arriving at the city of Tenochtitlan:

"When we saw so many cities and villages built in the water and other great towns on dry land we were amazed and said that it was like the enchantments (...) on account of the great towers and cues and buildings rising from the water, and all built of masonry. And some of our soldiers even asked whether the things that we saw were not a dream? (...) I do not know how to describe it, seeing things as we did that had never been heard of or seen before, not even dreamed about."

Later, of course, the conquistadors destroyed that city and much else. It's estimated that about 8 million of the indigenous people died in the immediate aftermath of the Spanish conquest primarily due to the diseases they brought with them (so much for medicine). The Tudor court in England, during the 16th century, constantly moved from place to place when the accumulation of human and other waste made whatever location they were at unbearable. I suspect that things weren't all that different in Spain at that time. At Versailles, in the 17th century, it was common for courtiers and others to urinate and defecate in convenient corners or under staircases, there being no facilities to use.

Don't be too hard on the Iron Age. Roman infrastructure during the Iron Age, particularly when it comes to the use of water but in other areas as well, wasn't matched in Europe until the 19th century.

@Lionino I will give you a wise advice because I really like and respect you. Don't waste your time on this kind of topics. As a Spaniard myself, I spent so much time using the same arguments as yours , but I came with the following conclusion: numerous members of this forum hate Spain, Portugal and England equally, and they think Western civilisation is the worst, our countries suck and we are bloody genociders, etc. But you know what is the biggest irony? None of them would go and live in Cuba, Venezuela, Mexico, Kenya, Angola etc. Most of the people who are against us, live and will live in the West side of the world.
So, don't waste your time. Your arguments and comments are very interesting, but regarding this topic... it is like discussing with a moocow. Our time is priceless. Qué les den a estos fodechinchos…

Moooo!

Am I among the "numerous members" of this forum you mention?

In fact, I'm very much a man of the West, and am fond even of Spain, except for its time under El Caudillo; nor am I a fan of the Hapsburgs.

Western civilization is admirable in many respects, but sadly it's been tainted by the exclusive and intolerant Abrahamic religions.

Fine. I don't have anything to object to. It is just the idea I conclude whenever I read your comments and other's. It is not the first time. It is something I came across reading different threads where this topic arises.

But I will not waste mine and your time discussing this... I gave up. I already know what the common sentiment and position are regarding this topic.

numerous members of this forum hate Spain, Portugal and England equally, and they think Western civilisation is the worst, our countries suck and we are bloody genociders, etc. But you know what is the biggest irony? None of them would go and live in Cuba, Venezuela, Mexico, Kenya, Angola etc. Most of the people who are against us, live and will live in the West side of the world. — javi2541997

I'm not sure which members you are thinking of. But I do agree that these days there is significant self-loathing in the West - we are often self-described as patriarchal, misogynist, war mongering, colonizing fascists and I can see why some people embrace 'strong men' and forms of nationalism, just to escape to a place of certainty and confidence, no matter how bogus.

I'm not sure which members you are thinking of. But I do agree that these days there is significant self-loathing in the West - we are often self-described as patriarchal, misogynist, war mongering, colonizing fascists and I can see why some people embrace 'strong men' and forms of nationalism, just to escape to a place of certainty and confidence, no matter how bogus — Tom Storm

Hey Tom - fwiw, my responses in that thread in which we had a disagreement are somewhat pursuant to the aim of not heading down this path of pathologising disagreements into 'bigotry' and 'moral failure'. Not in any way trying to resurrect that disagreement, just thought this a good, cooler scenario to point that out :) I had 'felt' we were somewhat close in terms of how to approach those issues, and this tells me I may have been right, and it was 'on the facts' that we had crossed wires.

Thanks. I'm sure we agree on a lot of things. But I am far from certain where I stand on much of this material. I'm just pointing out one dimension of what seems to be at play. I think I may be ambivalent about a range of matters. :wink:

When we saw so many cities and villages built in the water and other great towns on dry land we were amazed and said that it was like the enchantments (...) on account of the great towers and cues and buildings rising from the water, and all built of masonry. And some of our soldiers even asked whether the things that we saw were not a dream? (...) I do not know how to describe it, seeing things as we did that had never been heard of or seen before, not even dreamed about. — Ciceronianus

That is fine, some explorers saw cities of gold inside the Amazon, never to be found ag- speaking of. It does not mean that Tenochtlan was a nice place, especially to the non-Aztecs who got captured and were sacrificed alive.

(so much for medicine) — Ciceronianus

Disingenuous much?

Don't be too hard on the Iron Age — Ciceronianus

Same as above. Sidenote, if you are referring to Roman aqueducts and concrete, those were from after the Iron Age, which ended in the 7th century.

At the end of the day, among the Spaniard who colonised America, there were many very good people and very bad people, but most were inbetween. Bottom line, and my point, is that the Iberian colonisation of America left the place much better than it would have been otherwise, and most Americans that I see are grateful for their Latin and Catholic heritage. Nonetheless, there are still many that speak indigenous tongues — Mayans and Aztecs are not extinct, despite what Joe Rogan Podcast invitees and the movie 2012 say.
On the specific case of Mexico, it is that most people there today would not be alive if it were not for the Spanish, as their populational boom was only allowed by European technology. Spain's contributions far outweigh its damage. Which is not to be compared to Yankees, whose negatives are financing cartels and spreading anti-traditional values, and positives... uh...

None of them would go and live in Cuba, Venezuela, Mexico, Kenya, Angola — javi2541997

I think Angola, Kenya, and Mexico don't deserve to fall with Cuba and Venezuela, which are true socialist dumps.

I suppose no answer is a kind of answer, though a poor one.

As I say, I'm a man of the West, but we shouldn't limit ourselves. Here's what another Spaniard said:

Non sum uni angulo natus, patria mea totus hic mundus est (Seneca, Epistles 28.4)

Sidenote, if you are referring to Roman aqueducts and concrete, those were from after the Iron Age, which ended in the 7th century — Lionino

I disagree. The first aqueduct was the Aqua Appia, erected in 312 BCE. Others were built during the Roman Republic, third to first century BCE. Roman concrete was available during the Republic as well. The most impressive use of it, in my opinion, was in the construction of the Pantheon during the reign of Hadrian in the second century CE.

The first aqueduct was the Aqua Appia, erected in 312 BCE — Ciceronianus

third to first century BCE — Ciceronianus

Hadrian in the second century CE — Ciceronianus

The Iron Age was a period in human history that started between 1200 B.C. and 600 B.C — https://www.history.com/topics/pre-history/iron-age

Sorry. I had in mind the so-called Roman Iron Age, which it seems is believed to have taken place between 1-400 AD or CE.

I wasn't aware of such terminology.

:nerd: nice. I agree with those sentiments

What happened doesn't magically unhappen because somebody doesn't want to own it. My ancestors were as aggressive and violent as any other peoples, and if their past is cited, I don't yell "Victim!".

I am quoting the following from your own blog:

Spain being no better generally than most other nations, its common cultural heritage may be said to include some less than admirable things, e.g. fascism, civil war, slavery, the Spanish Inquisition (which nobody expects) and, some would even say, genocide in the Americas. Is it therefore the case that only its central government may prohibit such things? Probably not.
Regardless, though, I wonder whether the Spanish people are well served by a court ruling that bullfighting is part of their common cultural heritage. A heritage of gaudy, gruesome torment of animals wouldn't seem something to be proud of. https://theblogofciceronianus.blogspot.com/search/label/Spain?m=0

It's a beautiful city [Barcelona] of great, wide boulevards and fountains, and an impressive seafront graced by a statue of Columbus majestically pointing to the India he thought he would encounter in 1492. I would think a statue of that great man shrugging his shoulders or scratching his head would be more appropriate.

Oh yes! You are very fond of my country! How can I think otherwise?

Which parts were not true?