• Fushuan [he/him]@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    Not by conquistador standards, conquistadors weren’t a thing when he died. He was the Caribbean governor and conquistadors conquered the rest of americas some years after he died.

    • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      1: Would you agree that the Spanish systemically conquered the Caribbean islands to establish the base of operations they needed to expand on the mainland?

      2: What does conquistador directly translate as?

      3: Was Columbus specifically removed because he was bad even by the other conquered islands’ standards?

      • Fushuan [he/him]@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        Yes. Conqueror. Yes.

        I don’t get if you are trying to be smug about it or whatever, but the “conquerors” were a specific warring campaign soldiers deployed to conquer the rest of america, specifically the Aztecs since those weren’t “easy” to convert to catholicism given that they already had a religion.

        You specifically said “conquistador” standards, which although it’s an Spanish word that translates to conqueror, makes reference to a specific group that wasn’t even formed when Columbus died.

        Anyway, yes he was bad but I don’t get why no fucking one mentions Hernan Cortez, who massacred waaay more people, and went with the intent to murder and dominate them from the very beginning.

        • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          Mmhhmm.

          Tell me when conquistador became an official title, and what, exactly, was different about the mainland conquests that means you should treat the armed butchers as a separate entity?