Havana celebrates 500 years of foundation
bbc.com
bbc.com
This includes visiting St. Augustine, FL as a kid (founded 1565), and living in Santa Fe[1], NM (founded 1610), which is an hour or so drive south of Taos Pueblo where you there are multi-story buildings around 600 years old.
I think these should be part of a US-centric perspective of US history, but I recognize that most people -- including myself -- learn an English/British flavored perspective of that history.
I also know what you mean. I grew up in Miami, and as a kid there were still people alive born before the city was founded.
[1] Full name: La Villa Real de la Santa Fe de San Francisco de Asís
It's hard to 'blame America' for the totalitarian rule of Castro Inc. in Cuba, this subject makes me wonder deeply about the nature of perspective of populist leftists, anti-Americans etc.. Cuba is always an interesting litmus test for those who are willing to completely look the other way so long as the 'red flag' is on the pole.
The revolution made a few leaps and then failed miserably, as so many do, which is a real shame, because it's such a wonderful country otherwise. It'd be amazing to see what that country would be under some kind of normal leadership - I suggest it would be the richest in Latin America.
It would face some stiff competition - well-governed, Venezuela or Argentina could easily be. And we know this because for brief periods, they were!
The USSR paid 5-10x the global market price for Cuban sugar to prop up their fellow regime. But when the USSR dissolved Cuba had no one else willing to be its patron and it’s economy wasn’t designed for the real price.
There are nice buildings around Havana, gorgeous colonial mansions for the chosen few. Most people live with 3 families crammed into an apartment designed for one.
If you're into art, keep an eye on the contemporary Cuban art scene. Got to see some really impressive pieces during our visit.
So they are very intesting cities born at a major turning point in civilisation.
The Fall of Constantinople was in 1453, the Empire of Trebizond fell in 1461, and the Principality of Theodoro in 1475, which marked the final end of any state claiming to have been the "true" successor to the Byzantine Empire after its defeat in 1204 in the Fourth Crusade. All of these dates markedly predates Columbus's contact voyage in 1492.
Fun fact: The Patriarchate of Constantinople still exists today!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Rome
[Also the derivation of Tsar from Caesar]
Btw I'm Cuban myself.
Perhaps your history is written by Spaniards. I notice you didn't give any specific books to read. I'll do you a favour. Here's one: https://www.amazon.com/Brevisima-relacion-destruicion-Humani... The cover is "A 16th-century illustration by Flemish Protestant Theodor de Bry for Las Casas's Brevisima relación de la destrucción de las Indias, depicting Spanish atrocities during the conquest of Cuba"
While some atrocities did happen there was no genocide at all. That's why the old Spanish Empire in America is full of indigenous and mixed people. In coutrines like Bolivia the indigenous population is like 80%. How's that possible with?
500 years ago the Spanish crown forbid by slavery and declared that all indigenous people had the same rights as anyone. They also encouraged mixed marriages, something that wasn't allowed in the US until the 60's if I'm not mistaken.
I could tell you also how the some Mexican tribes allied with around 600 Spaniards to overthrow the Aztec Empire because they were the slaughters. Or how Blas de Lezo defended Cartagena de Indias from the British and saved thousand of indigenous which would've died in hands of the attackers.
That's why you can find 500 year old Spanish cities and universities in America.
I won't judge actions made 500 ago by today's standards but I won't throw unfunded accusations either.
That is, dm3730's comment concerns events which took place before slavery was prohibited, while your response concerns a later period of time, making it a rather inapplicable comment.
And I'll note that Spain had African slaves (not abolished in Cuba until 1886), and allowed slavery of indigenous people who rebelled against Spanish rule.
There's a debate over the genocide question. Eg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encomienda#Deaths,_disease,_an... says:
> Raphael Lemkin (coiner of the term genocide) considers Spain's abuses of the native population of the Americas to constitute cultural and even outright genocide including the abuses of the Encomienda system.
Do note also the "Skepticism toward alleged demographic declines and accusations of genocide" section on the same page.
The encomienda system allowed for forced labor, with severe punishment for not complying. But no, it wasn't, technically, slavery.
You ask "How's that possible [that the indigenous population of Bolivia is like 80%."
Where's the incompatibility? Tell me, what's the indigenous population of Cuba?
The US genocide of the indigenous Californians killed something like 90% of the indigenous population. But there's no similar genocide of the indigenous Hawaiians or Alaskans. Does the lack of a US genocide in one place mean that there was no genocide anywhere? Clearly no. So your example doesn't prove anything.
You write "all indigenous people had the same rights as anyone".
That's like saying that the US founders believed that "all men are created equal."
First off, did conversos have the same rights as non-conversos?
Second, do you believe the sistema de castas did not exist, or had negligible effect? Because, to quote from https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/60962114/Oxf...
"Yet, there were very real spiritual and social consequences tied to this system in which Indians and Africans were deemed to be of lesser spiritual ability, received a watered-down version of the faith, and were relegated to an inferior spiritual status within the religious fold. ... That culture of inferiority and suspicion around the purity of their religious belief and practice was reinforced socially and spatially throughout colonial society. Because they were perceived as constantly in need of correction, colonial controls on their bodies and souls were all the more heightened. In addition to limited access to the sacraments,Indians and Africans experienced heavy regulation of their spiritual and social activities. Indians were regularly restricted to reducciones as a means of taming their natural inclinations to better prepare them for proper Christian practice. Africans were subject to the jurisdiction of the Inquisition to regulate any unorthodox or immoral behavior. Confraternities and religious brotherhoods, arguably the most active aspect of popular religious life in the Spanish and Portuguese Americas, were often segregated by casta category or ethnic origin, with whites holding positions of power to monitor their ritual practice."
Hardly an example of "same rights", no?
I'll take "what is the black legend" for 500, Alex.
Where do they believe otherwise? They're merely mentioning that the city was populated prior to the genocide. You're defending atrocities against a specter of your own imagination.
Why do you feel the need to defend against the horrors of colonialism?
We then had to fight the Philippine Republic for control of the country, in the Philippine-American war.
What's wrong with an emotional response to an atrocity? Is it irrational to cry over the Holocaust because, hey, the Tsars didn't some pretty bad pogroms, too? No, emotional responses are perfectly fine and are a normal mode of thinking. Your fetishization of reason is dangerous and echoes the same rhetoric that enabled these atrocities: oh, they're not people, they're savages because X, so cut off their hands if they don't bring enough silver. The correct response here is to denounce colonialism, not to say, "oh, hey, it's not that bad because other people have done bad things."
The point is that it wasn't just Europeans that have done bad things in the past. It was every type of person. And now we can collectively move past with the lessons.