It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
why not just throw him right in and let him fight the old fashion way? Why not let the matador get killed by the bull if the bull wins? Isn't that what happened in the old days? I'd be all for that.
the spanish ARE european. darn near brought the eu down as well due to their debt.
i watched a fight one time.the bull came out hard
then you lift the spear so it impales itself on it. if the shaft brakes, you could be toast. if it swerves so you dont get the spear up, youre toast. lots of variables
Spanish conquistadors killed more natives than all other nations combined
originally posted by: tadaman
Keep hating people and cherry picking history while living in a nation that is devoid of all native populations. Spain left its colonies and the people still live there today. The UK, france, and everyone else left their colonies and the people [Native Americans] still lived there. The US was in charge of their land for a couple hundred years and managed to kill every native for the most part. What? They all moved to Mexico?
Dont look now, you sound like hypocrite.
the U.S. was not fair with dealing with Native Americans in the past, they kept them alive and growing at least.
Indian Numbers
The size of the native population at contact is critical to our argument. The prevailing position, a recent one, is that the Americas were well-populated rather than relatively empty lands in 1492. In the words of the sixteenth-century Spanish priest, Bartolomé de las Casas, who knew the Indies well:
All that has been discovered up to the year forty-nine 115491 is full of people, like a hive of bees, so that it seems as though God had placed all, or the greater part of the entire human race in these countries (Las Casas, in MacNutt 1909, 314).
Las Casas believed that more than 40 million Indians had died by the year 1560. Did he exaggerate? In the 1930s and 1940s, Alfred Kroeber, Angel Rosenblat, and Julian Steward believed that he had. The best counts then available indicated a population of between 815 million Indians in the Americas. Subsequently, Carl Sauer, Woodrow Borah, Sherburne F. Cook, Henry Dobyns, George Lovell, N. David Cook, myself, and others have argued for larger estimates. Many scholars now believe that there were between 40-100 million Indians in the hemisphere (Denevan 1992). This conclusion is primarily based on evidence of rapid early declines from epidemic disease prior to the first population counts (Lovell, this volume).
I have recently suggested a New World total of 53.9 million (Denevan 1992, xxvii). This divides into 3.8 million for North America, 17.2 million for Mexico, 5.6 million for Central America, 3.0 million for the Caribbean, 15.7 million for the Andes, and 8.6 million for lowland South America. These figures are based on my judgment as to the most reasonable recent tribal and regional estimates. Accepting a margin of error of about 20 percent, the New World population would lie between 43-65 million. Future regional revisions are likely to maintain the hemispheric total within this range. Other recent estimates, none based on totaling regional figures, include 43 million by Whitmore (1991, 483), 40 million by Lord and Burke (1991), 40-50 million by Cowley (1991), and 80 million for just Latin America by Schwerin (1991, 40). In any event, a population between 40-80 million is sufficient to dispel any notion of "empty lands." Moreover, the native impact on the landscape of 1492 reflected not only the population then but the cumulative effects of z growing population over the previous 15,000 years or more.
European entry into the New World abruptly reversed this trend. The decline of native American populations was rapid and severe, probably the greatest demographic disaster eve; (Lovell, this volume). Old World diseases were the primary killer. In many regions, particularly the tropical lowlands, populations fell by 90 percent or more in the first century after the contact. Indian populations (estimated) declined Hispaniola from 1 million in 1492 to a few hundred 50 years later, or by more than 99 percent in Peru from 9 million in 1520 to 670,000 in 1620 (92 percent); in the Basin of Mexico from 1.6 million in 1519 to 180,000 in 107 (89 percent); and in North America from 3.8 million in 1492 to 1 million in 1800 (74 percent). An overall drop from 53.9 million in 1492 to 5.6 million in 1650 amounts to an 89 percent reduction (Denevan 1992, xvii-xxix). The human landscape was affected accordingly, although there is not always a direct relationship between population density and human impact (Whitmore, et al. 1990, 37).
The replacement of Indians by Europeans and Africans was initially a slow process. By 1638 there were only about 30,000 English in North America (Sale 1990, 388), and by 1750 there were only 1.3 million Europeans and slaves (Meinig 1986, 247). For Latin America in 1750, 56nchez-Albornoz (1974, 7) gives a total (including Indians) of 12 million. For the hemisphere in 1750, the Atlas of World Population History reports 16 million (McEvedy and Jones 1978, 270).
Thus the overall hemispheric population in 1750 was about 30 percent of what it may have been in 1492. The 1750 population, however, was very unevenly distributed, mainly located in certain coastal and highland areas with little Europeanization elsewhere.
In North America in 1750, there were only small pockets of settlement beyond the coastal belt, stretching from New England to northern Florida (see maps in Meinig 1986, 209, 245). Elsewhere, combined Indian and European populations were sparse, and environmental impact was relatively minor.
I know you're somehow going to argue with numbers and facts
Guys like you don't stop until you have the last word
originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: stormson
Since you like brevity here is something that you can wrap your head around.
I think you are a fool for quantifying an entire people you have probably never even visited. I am sorry USING MY WORDS is not convenient to your ignorant hateful thought process.
Take it as you will. Keep hating little man.
Oh, and if military service makes you a "better" citizen in your eyes you no longer embrace the ethos of this country.
You are a citizen as I. Assuming you deserve MORE PRIVILEGE is the most un american thing I can think of. You are no better for your service. Touting it like some sort of golden ticket makes it a little less than selfless. You say that when you go grab a beer hoping that after being on the public dole you can squeeze a free beer out of a lesser citizen?
Enjoy.
P.S.
While the Spanish empire didnt last long its impact did. 2nd most spoken language BEFORE english globally second to mandarin only due to population density. You probably live in a town my people made and named.
and the church? Asturias is the start of the first crusade. The reconquista started in Spain where my family is from. Not even Rome could make us bend our knee.
Thats what I bring to the table and my country. You?
if spain and america go to war, which side do you choose?
umm, you take pride in the crusades? where you lost, again, and again?
you referred to spain as "my country".
btw, how did you hijack a thread about how dumb and barbaric bullfighting is to a referendum on spain as a whole? i love ibiza and tapas.
again, breeding doesnt make one great. english is the language of business and aviation. why? cause we dominate
originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: stormson
if spain and america go to war, which side do you choose?
I would defend the US with the same passion and intensity as I do here with words. I live what I preach. If you think this is bad, you should see how I treat jerks who piss all over my home country.
We didnt lose the crusades. We expelled the Moors and sent them into the ocean. I assume you are referring to the conquest of the holy land. That was a European venture that lasted several hundred years. Spain's role was probably the same as everyone elses.
you referred to spain as "my country".
check that. I said my home is the US. While my culture is from spain, my home and people are the US. Nice try. "mr. I am more American".
all in all I dont care what you have to say. You have shown that you are more about keeping face than actual debate. I didnt hijack anything. People want to piss on my culture? Here I am I will stand closer to you to make it easier. Dont expect me to recieve it and not dish it out. You have something to say about Spain? Say it to me. I am a descendant of SPaniards. I hope that doesnt change your sentiment. Having opposition only changes the tone to cowards.
I would thank you for your service by the way, but the way you keep throwing that out there is somehow disgraceful.
I have military in my family sir. Dont assume so much. I will probably be in uniform in less than a year if everything works out.
P.S.
We didnt breed more than others. Our culture and language was adopted is all. Spain constitutes less than 1% of the global population.
you cheated! you edited your response before i could clip it and show you for the fraud you are!
p.s. you know what soldiers think when you thank us? "why didnt you join?"