reply to post by isthisreallife
Yes, very good comparison. I've thought about this a lot and it interested me from the first time I learned about how the extension of their empire
related to the harm it caused their nation internally.
Reconquista = Manifest Destiny
Let's not forget that there was no "Spain" prior to 1492. When the Moors invaded in 711, they came across Visigothic kingdoms who had taken over the
failed State that was the Roman holdings in the Iberian peninsula. There was no Spanish language prior to 1492 (and that's only the officially
sanctioned version - I think the first dictionary came shortly there after, but I can't remember off the top of my head. Lope de Vega sounds right,
but I could be wrong...). Instead, the Visigoth Kingdoms spoke a series of semi-mutually intelligible dialects of Vulgar Latin with German words
thrown in by their new rulers (the Visigoths were Germanic peoples).
The Muslim invaders set up shop and created a unified kingdom. As the Christians started to fight back from their Northern enclaves, they resettled
their "continent" in the name of God. In reality, we can treat the Muslims as the Native Americans. For comparison, the Muslims held Granada from 711
to 1492 - that's three times as long as the Navajo lived in Arizona prior to colonization by the Spanish. So, I think I'm justified in saying it was
as much their land by then as it was the pre-Spanish peoples of modern Spain to have lost in the first place.
I guess that's irrelevant - just a case of two groups doing the same thing to each other and the mightier one won in the end. But anyway, along with
the Reconquista came the Inquisition - torture, racial purity, etc. I see this as very much similar to the rationale behind Manifest Destiny - a
re-claiming of lands God intended for the Protestant Anglo-Saxon to hold, not the heathens or Catholics.
Manifest Destiny continues...
It didn't stop at the Gadsden Purchase, from there we took over Hawai'i, Pacific islands like Guam, the Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and mucked
around quite a bit in Mexico and Central America. Now, as we clearly know, South Korea could clearly be seen as a Suzerain entity of our empire. Iraq
and Afghanistan are moving into that position now. What changed from the time of Spain to the US was the vehicle of expansion. In the Catholic model,
religion was seen as good enough of an impetus to secure riches. Nowadays, religion may still create a subtext, but invasion by proxy is now the norm,
with corporations becoming the third party that normalizes the invasion - overt or covert - of these foreign lap-dog states.
The only thing that seemingly does not match up was the level of migration. Arguably, many of the American holdings that belonged to Spain were highly
settled by their people. While naturally there are many people who are purely native in their genetic make-up (Quechua, Nahua, Maya, Yanomami, Yaqui,
Mapuche, etc.), the vast majority of people are mixed, either Native and Spanish in Mexico and Central America and the Andes, African and Spanish (and
Native) in the Caribbean Islands and coastal areas, and Spanish and other European or Native in Chile and Argentina.
This cannot be seen nowadays in places where the US invades and, whether we phrase it this way or not, colonizes. I think this has a lot to do with
acculturation through the corporate proxy vehicles. The language, culture, mores and the concept of consumerism of America is exported, less so her
people. How this will affect the eventual disintegration of the US is something I cannot know. But, unlike Spain, whose various colonies ended up
becoming nationalistic and bringing about new nations, the places we've invaded already have their own nascent nationalism and original concepts of
what their "nation" is. It's left to be seen in what way emancipation or independence will come about in this case.
**One small correction, if I could, Tenochtitlan was the capital of the Aztec Empire, not the Mayans.
EDIT: Not Lope de Vega, Antonio de Nebrija, sanctioned by Queen Isabel, wrote the first Spanish dictionary in 1492...should have remembered. By the
way, they didn't call it Spanish, they called it Castellano (Castillian) which is of course in direct referencing to the Kingdom of Castilla
(Castille) who was ruled by Isabel, who married Fernando of Aragon to form the first union that would later become what we call Spain. I think this is
too unique a time in history to parallel with the US, as English was already a well documented and standardized language by the time the American
colonies gained independence. Just thought I'd add it since we're on the subject.
edit on 13-9-2011 by Sphota because: (no reason