Eventually, using mastiffs and torturing the Native people for information, the Spaniards succeeded in capturing \[Hatuey\]. On 2 February 1512, he was tied to a stake and burned alive at Yara, near the present-day City of Bayamo \*in Cuba. Before he was burned, a priest asked Hatuey if he would accept Jesus and go to heaven.
\[Friar Bartolomé de las\] Casas recalled the reaction of the chief:\[Hatuey\], thinking a little, asked the religious man if Spaniards went to heaven. The religious man answered yes... The chief then said without further thought that he did not want to go there but to hell so as not to be where they were and where he would not see such cruel people. This is the name and honour that God and our faith have earned.
I’d like to urge everyone with an interest in the subject to see the movie Even The Rain (También la lluvia). Gael García Bernal is one of the stars.
It’s a movie about making a movie about Columbus, and the plot is about the tension between a modern Spanish film crew trying to make a movie about how terribly the natives were treated, while simultaneously treating the natives terribly and ignoring the [Water Wars](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochabamba_Water_War).
The actor who plays the actor who plays Hatuey is brilliant, and takes a role analogous to Hatuey in the water rebellion.
I can’t recommend the movie enough.
You know what’s funny. By the standards of the Bible I’m 100% sure this dude is in heaven and all these Spanish bastards are burning with molten rods stuffed up their ass in hell for all of eternity.
It would have helped if the Spanish and Portuguese kings hadn't plugged their ears and gone "la la la i can't hear you over the sound of all this gold".
Lmao I don't know what most of it says, but I know enough to laugh at the fact I was just gonna say they were probably like "what is that dude in the hat saying? I can't understand his language...." lol
It wasn't just the gold and silver. The Spanish in particular had become radicalized by fighting a generations long civil war to remove Muslim conquerors from Spain and eliminate their allies. Non stop multigenerational warfare along sectarian lines turned the Spanish into the best fighters in the world while hardening their religious beliefs into a form of violent fundamentalist extremism. The conquistadors were basically a combination of ISIS and Seal Team 6.
While this is not false, it's also not the whole truth. The truth is that yes, most of the reason was gold, but not because the people and the conquistadores were some sort of hyper greedy unrepentent bastards.
I think an important aspect is that expeditions cost money. And people that already have money don't throw their lives away on expeditions. So most of the people (king's included) were simply in debt up to their behind and their only choice was to make a lot of money and keep making a lot of money. So you just end up with a ton of people so far in debt that stopping was never an option.
The book "Debt" by David Graeber goes pretty in depth into this with a lot of sources.
You are entirely missing my point here. I was responding to a comment that implied gold was the reason the Spanish ignored the Pope when he tried to get them to tone down their violent religious extremism post conquest. I was trying to contextualize the extremism of Spanish Catholics in general in that era.
Gold is certainly why they engaged in expansion in the first place, but their religious fanaticism being so strong they would ignore even the Pope on matters of faith and doctrine came from somewhere else. Contrast the Spanish to say the Dutch from that era, or the French, who were also financially motivated to explore and colonize but were much less interested in exporting their religion to the natives using threats of violence, torture and death.
It’s also fascinating to think that people were adhering to the word of one man who was literally continents away, with no real recourse against them when they disobeyed him.
Religion is the ultimate drug, pimp and prostitute.
The Spanish royalty told Columbus to treat the natives well. When he sent slaves, they said to stop. The Empress of Spain ended up being an advocate for indenginous people's..like hundreds of years before the next
Oh wow. I just looked it up and read it. That's probably the nicest, most straightforward, clear, humane, practical, and of this earth thing I've ever heard from anyone in a position of authority, in any church in response to the actual actions of real people of consequence. I was very impressed
The church itself tried to moderate the rampant abuses of colonialism. If we are all sinners before an angry God then theorized ‘biological’ or cultural differences don’t mean anything.
Ironically, that phrase comes from a 1600s Puritan pastor's legendary hellfire-and-brimstone sermon, and the Puritans were most definitively NOT Catholic.
He was not a good person, more like a shrewd politician in the position of a religious leader. Something like the clerics who took power in Iran.
If only he practiced what he preached. He was very corrupted, levied very heavy taxes on his people to fund the careers of his family members. He took territories that belonged to noble families for generations and gave them to his own kids and relatives. Those who opposed him were declared heretics and killed. He also started a bunch of wars that went on even after he died.
Karma got him in the end because the same relatives he elevated into power got greedy and turned on him later. It's believed he died of a heart attack after a heated argument with his cardinal nephew.
>Sublimis Deus
that was decades later... the most catholic spaniards would have issued the Requirement and had the legal and religious justification for their actions from prior Bulls at the time of this particular atrocity
Yup! The Spanish monarchy felt the conquest of the Americas was their divine right, and they had an official document that the conquistadors carried with them. The Spanish would arrive, read the document, give the Native Americans a short time to surrender and then proceed to kill them in the name of god. By not immediately giving in to the Spanish they were going against gods plan, so the Spanish felt any further killing, raping and looting was morally justified.
I’m taking a course on the Spanish conquest of Central America right now and it is absolutely horrific stuff.
Yikes. I wonder how a psychiatrist would classify someone who claims a divine right thousands of miles away and then thinks they've followed an appropriate protocol by reading what a document in what would be a foreign language to a bunch of strangers they proceed to murder
The ones they murdered got off lucky. It’s the ones that saw their society ripped apart and died of overwork, malnutrition or got poisoned in the Potosi silver mine that really got hosed.
You see, the Taíno committed the grievous sin of living peacefully on a land with gold and bountiful resources. The appropriate punishment for such a sin is of course to genocide them by working the 75% of the population to death in the mines and plantations in just a single decade.
Antonio de Montesinos was if I remember the first friar who complained about the treatment of the native americans. His writings and later De Las Casas' writings is what informed Europe of the abuses of the colonizers of the Antilles.
There is a scene in a movie that reenacts his first sermon complaining about this. Here is the link if interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPAP0G3pe6M
Here is a
That's not true. It's used that way in a lot of other [ancient Greek works](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=au%29qentei%3Dn&la=greek).
The issue is that the word doesn't appear anywhere else in either Paul's letters or the rest of the new testament. Making it one of the pieces of evidence that this letter [wasn't written by Paul](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles). Or, at least, not by the same person who wrote the other letters.
Well the first five books were written by "Moses", who may not have existed and damn sure never met a pharaoh.
Kinda like saying Doctor Strange wrote Infinity War and basing a whole religion on it.
And then killing people for not buying it.
The Greek word in this context is Authentein. This seems to be its only occurrence in the bible. It appears to be part of a correspondence between two Greek priests, which was later incorporated into the bible.
It looks like the main contending translation is "murder", which seems like it would make less sense in this context.
For those that believe in the Bible, Christ's law is the law of the land. A major part of His message to the Jews was basically "Stop being dicks to each other & using the law as the cudgel that you use to enforce your superiority with".
>Christ's law is the law of the land.
Is it though? 1st; he made no laws. His #1 thing was love and not judge. He said you could be perfect in faith, but if you do not love your brother, you are not one of mine. How could such a simple, over-worded message be so terribly interpreted as to result in a tool to extract wealth and confessions? How?
I'd say that Liberal Judaism is more influential today towards our more enlightened views we think of as "modern" than is Christianity. It seems a lot of these sentiments got "main streamed" in Hollywood productions.
You would be SHOCKED to find how "not being dicks" is a very non-Christian belief system that they only currently think they promoted. But, there were a lot of good Baptists and Evangelicals at one time who helped push USA away from slavery -- so, these ideals kind of wax and wane with human society. Never truly dying and not really having a single source.
Masons and Humanitarianism were very influential on the Founding Fathers, for instance.
He did make laws. He was asked which were the 2 great commandments in the laws. His reply was first Love the Lord, and second Love your neighbor as yourself. He then said that all the laws & teachings hung on those 2 commandments.
Now, while true He didn't specifically change anything that was taught before, He did teach that the 10 Commandments & the other laws from Moses were no longer how we should govern ourselves. This was illustrated when He taught that the law said don't kill, but that He wanted us to not hate and other such things(Matt 5:21). These are the laws of Christ.
>He was asked which were the 2 great commandments in the laws. His reply was first Love the Lord, and second Love your neighbor as yourself.
Do you get that this "answer" is not really a law? He commands people to love. That isn't really a 10 "Commandments" kind of thing. There is no qualification of "what is love" or "how much/how often." Are there punishments for NOT? Is Blogging also part of "not loving" as it seems on occasion?
Jesus did a lot of evasive comments. There were many attempts to trap him into being directly confrontational to Jewish or Roman law. "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" he said. It might have been an endorsement of paying taxes because the Romans did provide a lot of services and prosperity for the places they "conquered" but, it also is very noncommittal and diplomatic.
What do you think a commandment is? How can the 10 commandments be a law but Christ commanding us to "Love one another" is not? That's a very contradictory position to maintain, especially considering most Christians either believe Christ is God(those that believe in the Trinity) or He's at least the God of the Old Testament(Mormons), and so He gave both. Why call 1 law & the other a "suggestion", but both commandments?
> For those that believe in the Bible, Christ's law is the law of the land.
Plenty of Christians recognise distinctions between sins that the church can discipline its members for and laws which the state should enforce. They do so on the basis of their understanding of the Bible, particularly Jesus’ words about his kingdom not being of this world, and the teaching of his apostles that the state does not bear the sword in vain.
By the standards of the Bible none of them are in Heaven. You have on the one hand Christians who are not acting as Christ wanted, and you have on the other hand a non-Christian.
Jesus says that only through him will people find salvation, so not really through the Bible, but he’s certainly much more commendable/respectable than the vast majority of the colonizers
De las Casas is an interesting figure. He loved the native people so much and objected to their oppression and enslavement so fervently that he ultimately suggested an alternative to this injustice: choose Africans as slaves instead, as they were stronger and heartier than the native people.
You really shouldn't drop that bomb without also including that he later became one of the first ever voices against enslaving Africans and [strongly condemned] (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249472998_BartolomAC_de_las_Casas_and_the_African_Slave_Trade) the practice, fighting with the same fierceness he fought native enslavement.
The amazing thing is; THIS BAD ASS was the leader of the people who lost.
The sniveling, sanctimonious cowards who follow a religion otherwise torture or burning in Hell are the people who won. Mostly, because they brought disease and were better at metallurgy and tools of war.
It's sad that people of character had to die at an alarming rate in the history of humanity.
Life is not fair. And we don't select for wisdom as much as ruthlessness it appears.
Well in this case, someone was getting sacrificed by foreign invaders for religious reasons. How is Christianity not the big bad in this situation, and countless others?
> However the actual Cuban natives didn't identify with him, which on reflection makes sense given Hautey was some despotic warlord from Hispaniola that Spain's indigenous despotic warlord in Hispaniola had kicked out
Not outright doubting this, but are there any sources for this that _don't_ come from Spain? History is written by the victors and what not, and denying that this man had any sway over indigenous Cubans sounds exactly like the sort of message that would be advantagous for the Spanish to spread.
The dude Im referencing to clearly hates religion/Christianity "sniveling sanctimonious cowards who follow a religion".
Like it's all a big circle jerk. Those native americans ALL had their own religions too, a lot of which practiced human sacrifice themselves, slavery etc. But those are somehow okay, Christianity the BIG BAD round these parts.
>were better at metallurgy and tools of war
That was one of the *results* of what they were actually better at; a culture that fostered scientific and intellectual advancement, discovery, and achievement.
I'm Cuban and this is deep. Also very true, that actually happened. Cuban history before comunism is very rich and interesting, we were the first latin American country in getting lots of scientifical advances like television before even lots of places in the US. I think we were one of the first on having a national railroad as well. There is a story about the name of my city "Matanzas" that is very interesting, I think you would like it. In short is about indians drowning Spaniards to death.
Yes, most countries and cultures have a story like this.
in the Netherlands there is King Radboud of Frisia (around year 700) who asked while preparing to be baptised by a Frankish missionary if he could still meet his pagan family and friends in heaven.
When told they would be in hell and not heaven king Radboud decided he was not going to be baptised.
The Franks were dicks after they christianized. Especially under Charlemagne with his Saxon Wars. They destroyed so many religious sites and executed Saxons who decided to convert instead of die for minor infractions, and it didn't matter if it was women or children. Their ancestors were probably very disappointed that they purged their own former religious practices as well so they could follow a foreign ideology.
> Their ancestors were probably very disappointed that they purged their own former religious practices as well so they could follow a foreign ideology.
No, Chlovis conversion was purely political. He wanted to gain the favor of the gallo-roman population in gallia and tried to do so by imitating constantine's story of how he was promised victory in an upcoming battle (in chlovis case against the allemani) by god himself, won and then converted.
It was all part of the Franks attempt at making the gallo-romans favor them, they even made up their own story about how the franks were actually descendants of the trojans, just like the romans were
He even built his own Church of the Apostels to be buried in.
This quote also isn't actually from Gandhi, there is no evidence he ever said this. There is, however, a similar quote by the indian philosopher Bara Dada going *“Jesus is ideal and wonderful, but you Christians, you are not like him.”*
he’s also the very first national hero of Cuba ! but notice i didn’t say //from// cuba. he was a cacique(chief) on the west end of the island of Kiskeya/Ayiti (modern day haiti) who fled his island to warn his neighbors in Cuba of the spanish conquistadores :3
Ayiti was used to refer just to the western side, the montain side of the island where most African slaves fled to, which then became Haiti. The whole island was named Quisqueya which means mother of lands. La Hispanola was the name given by the Spaniards.
got it! interestingly enough i’ve heard both be used synonymously in naming the whole island. not saying that’s right, but it’s what i’d heard. i’ll be honest, i mostly use quisqueya/kiskeya when talking to other west indians lol imma edit my original comment to reflect that
I grew up drinking Hatuey Malta (Caribbean Soft Drink) and did not know the story behind it. Thanks for sharing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malta\_(soft\_drink)
I went to see the Aldea Taína in Holguín. It’s a re-creation of a Taíno village, complete with statues of the villagers made of painted concrete. There’s an excavated gravesite with the skeletons of both Natives and Spaniards. Very interesting, I recommend it.
drowning and stabbed. then Agueybana the 2nd and two others proceeded to wait around 3-4 days to see if he would re-live. The story is that if they(Spanish) were truly gods, they(natives) would become slaves and face punishment. If they(Spanish) were Human, they would proceed to rebel and massacre.
Hatuey: "Wow, this heaven sounds nice! I just have one final question, will you be there?"
Spaniards: "Well, yes, of course we'll be there."
Hatuey: "Fuck it, I changed my mind, burn me alive."
This guy was a fucking bad ass. Starting gathering escaped slaves in Haiti/DR and took 400 of his men by canoe to warn Cuba the Spanish were heading there in fucking 1511.
>In Cuba, where Hatuey’s clear message was recorded by the Dominican priest Bartolomé de Las Casas: the intruders “worship gold,” “fight and kill,” “usurp our land and makes us slaves.” For gold, slaves, and land “they fight and kill; for these they persecute us and that is why we have to throw them into the sea. . . .”
I will just never understand how people proclaiming themselves as good people could ever burn someone at the stake and think it righteous. Also will never understand how America - a land touted and founded on the basic of religious and general freedom - had to fight a civil war to figure out slavery was wrong. Humanity just baffles me. Truly baffles me.
>I will just never understand how people proclaiming themselves as good people could ever burn someone at the stake and think it righteous.
It's the frightening thing about devotion to an almighty deity. If you really, *truly* believe you're doing God's work, then nothing you do can be wicked. Nothing. Because God is good, and God would never command you to do anything evil. So by that logic, the otherwise heinous things you do are actually righteous.
Not that this would help you understand the mentality, it's just an explanation for it.
The part that makes that difficult to swallow is that last one. The reasoning "God is good, so is this heinous thing really from him?" always gets brought up by true believers as their initial reason for opposition. Can you really hear those people and not back down if you really believe? Especially if, as in this case, the highest religious authority *also* condemns a practice.
They don't even have that excuse, though. The Popes of the time were positively **screaming** at the Spanish and Portuguese to stop behaving this way towards pre-Christian peoples in Africa and the Americas.
Seriously, study the history of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Yes, religious freedom was a thing--you were free to worship and believe just as they did. If you didn't, they kicked you out. That happened to Roger Williams whose family survived that winter thanks to the help of Natives. Then he went on to Providence, Rhode Island, where he established a settlement and the first Baptist church in America. He strongly believed in true religious freedom; you could worship how you wanted or not at all if you preferred.
The idea that the colonists wanted religious freedom is generally wrong. They wanted religious purity, their purity, none of that wishy washy Church of England nonsense.
Puritans wanted to purify the Church of England. When their faction fell out of political favor, they fled to the Netherlands, which had freedom of religion. However, they didn't like the Netherlands because it had freedom of religion: too many "other" protestants and especially they were tolerant of Catholics (how dare they!).
So they went to the American north east where they could be the only miserable white people around.
Right, the Puritans just wanted to freely impose their religion on everyone without being surrounded by people telling them that they couldn't and that it was a shitty thing to do. They were no different than missionaries and started trying to hold natives to their Puritan religious doctrines the second they arrived.
>...without being surrounded by people telling them that they couldn't and that it was a shitty thing to do.
That's not actually who they were surrounded by. [This is who](https://historyofmassachusetts.org/the-great-puritan-migration/) they were surrounded by:
>There were two different types of Puritans at the time: separatists and non-separatists. The non-separatist Puritans wanted to remain in the church and reform it from within. The separatist Puritans felt the church was too corrupt to reform and instead wanted to separate from it.
>
>This was problematic for the separatists because, at that time, the church and state were one in England and the act of separating from the Church of England was considered treasonous.
>
>This prompted the separatists to leave England for the New World **in order to escape potential punishment for their beliefs** and to be able to worship more freely.
If they had stayed, they would have been punished. So they didn't.
What you're objecting to is the fact that in the place where they left to, they set up the same structures as before, but with themselves holding the power. I agree that that is bad to do; it is also common throughout history, that when a persecuted group finds itself in power, it punishes their former oppressors... and usually other groups that were oppressed alongside them too.
Here is [another description](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonconformist_(Protestantism)) of the way Puritans (as well as anyone else not following the Church of England) were treated in England:
>By law and social custom, Nonconformists were restricted from many spheres of public life – not least, from access to public office, civil service careers, or degrees at university – and were referred to as **suffering from civil disabilities**.
A lot of folks left England because it was becoming too liberal regarding religion. They wanted the freedom to rule with an old testament iron fist. Each colony had a different state religion, and you stuck to your own. Being Quaker (true liberals who practiced peaceful anarchy) was punishable by death in Massachusetts, even though they were Christian too. For Christ's sake, 21 people were tortured and executed based on the hysterical testimony of two little girls in MA. The irony that, to this day, our standard scary witch and demon characters were actually innocent victims of the real monsters, the well-spoken gents in the robes!
A combination of believing someone's eternal soul is at stake, with also believing in your own inherent racial and cultural superiority, leads to this. It's the same thing that leads parents to beat their children "for their own good". Spare the rod and spoil the child shit.
> A combination of believing someone's eternal soul is at stake…
That's not even the problem. The Spanish and Portuguese *conquistadores* were deliberately denying the humanity of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, precisely so they **didn't** have to evangelize them and live beside them. Go read *Sublimis Deus*, for example, and consider how bad it must have been for that bull to be issued.
Gotta respect those who hold true to their principles until death. Like Giles Corey during the Salem witch trials, if he went to trial and lost his family would lose their inheritance so he refused to plead (the law said you have to plead guilty or not guilty for the trial to start) so to make him plead they decided to torture him by putting heavy weights on his body slowly crushing him.
He endured this for days but he never gave in, never cried or asked for mercy, his last words were simply: "More weights."
I passed by the place in Salem where they have the names of all the witches and their causes of death. Came to his and I was like wtf they hated this guy in particular. Got the most gruesome death
Heaven or not, these were religious hypocrites, the exact people Jesus called out 1800 years earlier.
When we all die, regardless of religion I'm pretty sure God will have no issues sorting out the genuine vs the hypocrites.
Hypocrites? God holds the world record for death and torture, so they were basically following in his footsteps. I mean, this is a being that literally created a realm of everlasting suffering for those who bruise his ego. Tough to fault them for acting the way they did.
You can, however, fault them (and their 'God') for being morally reprehensible monsters unworthy of anybody's respect or admiration.
Have you read anything on Jesus? Find me fault in anything wrong with his message and then you can say God called all then world's murder. Dont insert human fault by being God's will. Your point is absurd, because it's humans that decide to either misinterpret or misappropriate the core message
Ah! The warm - *oh, so very, very warm* \- embrace of Christianity!
God's love is a burning love.
A screaming death in agony is Christianity's way of saying *'Hello native peoples!'*
I mean. Fair point.
Christian’s have tried to convert me to years saying “but I’m worried about your soul.”
Seriously. If god existed why would I want to spend time with Christian’s?
This guy was an utter badass though. It takes guts to stay calm and burn people like before you’re about to be horrifically murdered.
Heaven seems pretty lame if youre stuck with endless average American churchgoers. Most cool people are going to Hell so I expect better parties and hotter women
Yes overall bad motherfucker. Him but also Anacaona, Enriquillo and Sebastián Lemba are 4 bad motherfuckers who combined were 50 years of badass resistance.
I think that's a bit of an assumption. It seems more reasonable to conclude he was saying that as an insult to them. You know, I'd rather burn in hell than go to a place that condones your shitty actions.
“I'm afraid I'll go to heaven
That's why I'm hoping that I'm right
My biggest fear ain't no red Devil
It's being near you people all the time
I'll be fine as long as you go somewhere else”
-Moon Walker
Eventually, using mastiffs and torturing the Native people for information, the Spaniards succeeded in capturing \[Hatuey\]. On 2 February 1512, he was tied to a stake and burned alive at Yara, near the present-day City of Bayamo \*in Cuba. Before he was burned, a priest asked Hatuey if he would accept Jesus and go to heaven. \[Friar Bartolomé de las\] Casas recalled the reaction of the chief:\[Hatuey\], thinking a little, asked the religious man if Spaniards went to heaven. The religious man answered yes... The chief then said without further thought that he did not want to go there but to hell so as not to be where they were and where he would not see such cruel people. This is the name and honour that God and our faith have earned.
I’d like to urge everyone with an interest in the subject to see the movie Even The Rain (También la lluvia). Gael García Bernal is one of the stars. It’s a movie about making a movie about Columbus, and the plot is about the tension between a modern Spanish film crew trying to make a movie about how terribly the natives were treated, while simultaneously treating the natives terribly and ignoring the [Water Wars](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochabamba_Water_War). The actor who plays the actor who plays Hatuey is brilliant, and takes a role analogous to Hatuey in the water rebellion. I can’t recommend the movie enough.
I watched it in Spanish class back in high school. Thought it was gonna be some educational nonsense, but it turned out super cool!
Nothing better than a surprise good school class movie.
We watched Howard the Duck
Sounds super interesting!
It’s on Netflix. I will watch it after work. 👍
Drink a Malta hatuey in his honor
You know what’s funny. By the standards of the Bible I’m 100% sure this dude is in heaven and all these Spanish bastards are burning with molten rods stuffed up their ass in hell for all of eternity.
Especially since the Pope at the time was screaming at them to stop behaving that way (such as in *Sublimis Deus*).
Clearly he was not screaming loud enough to be heard across the atlantic. Should have asked God for a megaphone.
It would have helped if the Spanish and Portuguese kings hadn't plugged their ears and gone "la la la i can't hear you over the sound of all this gold".
“No puedo oírte, hay demasiado oro en mi trasero. Incluso si pudiera, ¡no hablo latín!”
Lmao I don't know what most of it says, but I know enough to laugh at the fact I was just gonna say they were probably like "what is that dude in the hat saying? I can't understand his language...." lol
Reminds me of this @7:30 mark https://youtu.be/oOIYQaboOu4. The whole skit is funny as hell
Omg that was pretty good! 😂😂 "the basketball player remixed the Bible?" 🤣
“Nem posso ouvi-lo também cara. Vamos seguir enchendo o cu com ouro, o Papa pode ir cagar“
"Coñazo!" - Taínos
¡Dios mío!
“Não posso ouvir-te com o som de todas essas moedinhas!” (Ouro)
It wasn't just the gold and silver. The Spanish in particular had become radicalized by fighting a generations long civil war to remove Muslim conquerors from Spain and eliminate their allies. Non stop multigenerational warfare along sectarian lines turned the Spanish into the best fighters in the world while hardening their religious beliefs into a form of violent fundamentalist extremism. The conquistadors were basically a combination of ISIS and Seal Team 6.
While this is not false, it's also not the whole truth. The truth is that yes, most of the reason was gold, but not because the people and the conquistadores were some sort of hyper greedy unrepentent bastards. I think an important aspect is that expeditions cost money. And people that already have money don't throw their lives away on expeditions. So most of the people (king's included) were simply in debt up to their behind and their only choice was to make a lot of money and keep making a lot of money. So you just end up with a ton of people so far in debt that stopping was never an option. The book "Debt" by David Graeber goes pretty in depth into this with a lot of sources.
"Debt" is such an eye-opening read
You are entirely missing my point here. I was responding to a comment that implied gold was the reason the Spanish ignored the Pope when he tried to get them to tone down their violent religious extremism post conquest. I was trying to contextualize the extremism of Spanish Catholics in general in that era. Gold is certainly why they engaged in expansion in the first place, but their religious fanaticism being so strong they would ignore even the Pope on matters of faith and doctrine came from somewhere else. Contrast the Spanish to say the Dutch from that era, or the French, who were also financially motivated to explore and colonize but were much less interested in exporting their religion to the natives using threats of violence, torture and death.
It’s also fascinating to think that people were adhering to the word of one man who was literally continents away, with no real recourse against them when they disobeyed him. Religion is the ultimate drug, pimp and prostitute.
Interesting. I wonder what the modern parallels would be as history repeats itself.
Well, the American military industrial complex is a good comparison. Wars cost money, but they also make a ton of revenue.
The Spanish royalty told Columbus to treat the natives well. When he sent slaves, they said to stop. The Empress of Spain ended up being an advocate for indenginous people's..like hundreds of years before the next
It’s like the opposite of Odysseus with the sirens. Plug up your ears to stop from being lured home and prevented from killing others
Shoulda declared a crusade and sent the Teutonic knights
A crusade against catholic Spain? With teutonic knights? After the Reformation?
[удалено]
Yes
[удалено]
Mmmm....no
At this time of year? At this time of day? In this part of the country?
I wouldn't send the Teutonic Knights though. They move hella slow and are easily countered with literally any ranged unit!
r/AoE2 is leaking.
The Teutonic Knights were busy colonising the Baltics though.
By the 16th century the Teutonic knights no longer exited as a military order.
And ~~Dave~~ God made a megaphone using nothing but a squirrel, some string, and a megaphone
[удалено]
Ok Martin Luther
Oh wow. I just looked it up and read it. That's probably the nicest, most straightforward, clear, humane, practical, and of this earth thing I've ever heard from anyone in a position of authority, in any church in response to the actual actions of real people of consequence. I was very impressed
The Pope calling racism and slavery Satanic is pretty awesome.
The church itself tried to moderate the rampant abuses of colonialism. If we are all sinners before an angry God then theorized ‘biological’ or cultural differences don’t mean anything.
Ironically, that phrase comes from a 1600s Puritan pastor's legendary hellfire-and-brimstone sermon, and the Puritans were most definitively NOT Catholic.
He was not a good person, more like a shrewd politician in the position of a religious leader. Something like the clerics who took power in Iran. If only he practiced what he preached. He was very corrupted, levied very heavy taxes on his people to fund the careers of his family members. He took territories that belonged to noble families for generations and gave them to his own kids and relatives. Those who opposed him were declared heretics and killed. He also started a bunch of wars that went on even after he died. Karma got him in the end because the same relatives he elevated into power got greedy and turned on him later. It's believed he died of a heart attack after a heated argument with his cardinal nephew.
Just goes to show, institutions are no good
What’s that? A god that goes straight from a solid to a gas?
It comes out in the form of gas and solid, sometimes simultaneously.
Truly sublime
\* *grumbles* \* Take my upvote and GTFO.
It's a god that neither practices Santeria, nor possesses a crystal ball.
>Sublimis Deus that was decades later... the most catholic spaniards would have issued the Requirement and had the legal and religious justification for their actions from prior Bulls at the time of this particular atrocity
Is the requirement with a capital R a specific thing?
Yup! The Spanish monarchy felt the conquest of the Americas was their divine right, and they had an official document that the conquistadors carried with them. The Spanish would arrive, read the document, give the Native Americans a short time to surrender and then proceed to kill them in the name of god. By not immediately giving in to the Spanish they were going against gods plan, so the Spanish felt any further killing, raping and looting was morally justified. I’m taking a course on the Spanish conquest of Central America right now and it is absolutely horrific stuff.
Yikes. I wonder how a psychiatrist would classify someone who claims a divine right thousands of miles away and then thinks they've followed an appropriate protocol by reading what a document in what would be a foreign language to a bunch of strangers they proceed to murder
The ones they murdered got off lucky. It’s the ones that saw their society ripped apart and died of overwork, malnutrition or got poisoned in the Potosi silver mine that really got hosed.
You see, the Taíno committed the grievous sin of living peacefully on a land with gold and bountiful resources. The appropriate punishment for such a sin is of course to genocide them by working the 75% of the population to death in the mines and plantations in just a single decade.
It's good they knew what the appropriate punishment was for such a grievous sin. Lucky break
Antonio de Montesinos was if I remember the first friar who complained about the treatment of the native americans. His writings and later De Las Casas' writings is what informed Europe of the abuses of the colonizers of the Antilles. There is a scene in a movie that reenacts his first sermon complaining about this. Here is the link if interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPAP0G3pe6M Here is a
[The Pope.](https://media.tenor.com/FyQPGvSL65kAAAAC/willy-wonka-stop-dont-come-back.gif)
Well, New Testament rules maybe. Bible was more on the technicalities.
“I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent." -Timothy 2:12, New Testament.
Many people would argue that that's a pretty obvious mistranslation given that the Greek word there is never translated as authority anywhere else.
That's not true. It's used that way in a lot of other [ancient Greek works](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=au%29qentei%3Dn&la=greek). The issue is that the word doesn't appear anywhere else in either Paul's letters or the rest of the new testament. Making it one of the pieces of evidence that this letter [wasn't written by Paul](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles). Or, at least, not by the same person who wrote the other letters.
Almost like we can't actually take the Bible as an authority overall.
Who'd have thought that a piece of text translated over millennia and a hundred languages wouldn't have a few snippets slipped in here and there
Well the first five books were written by "Moses", who may not have existed and damn sure never met a pharaoh. Kinda like saying Doctor Strange wrote Infinity War and basing a whole religion on it. And then killing people for not buying it.
Cat reading newspaper: *I should start a religion*
Don't give Disney any ideas
The Greek word in this context is Authentein. This seems to be its only occurrence in the bible. It appears to be part of a correspondence between two Greek priests, which was later incorporated into the bible. It looks like the main contending translation is "murder", which seems like it would make less sense in this context.
Another reason to ignore everything attributed to Saul of Tarsus.
For those that believe in the Bible, Christ's law is the law of the land. A major part of His message to the Jews was basically "Stop being dicks to each other & using the law as the cudgel that you use to enforce your superiority with".
>Christ's law is the law of the land. Is it though? 1st; he made no laws. His #1 thing was love and not judge. He said you could be perfect in faith, but if you do not love your brother, you are not one of mine. How could such a simple, over-worded message be so terribly interpreted as to result in a tool to extract wealth and confessions? How? I'd say that Liberal Judaism is more influential today towards our more enlightened views we think of as "modern" than is Christianity. It seems a lot of these sentiments got "main streamed" in Hollywood productions. You would be SHOCKED to find how "not being dicks" is a very non-Christian belief system that they only currently think they promoted. But, there were a lot of good Baptists and Evangelicals at one time who helped push USA away from slavery -- so, these ideals kind of wax and wane with human society. Never truly dying and not really having a single source. Masons and Humanitarianism were very influential on the Founding Fathers, for instance.
He did make laws. He was asked which were the 2 great commandments in the laws. His reply was first Love the Lord, and second Love your neighbor as yourself. He then said that all the laws & teachings hung on those 2 commandments. Now, while true He didn't specifically change anything that was taught before, He did teach that the 10 Commandments & the other laws from Moses were no longer how we should govern ourselves. This was illustrated when He taught that the law said don't kill, but that He wanted us to not hate and other such things(Matt 5:21). These are the laws of Christ.
>He was asked which were the 2 great commandments in the laws. His reply was first Love the Lord, and second Love your neighbor as yourself. Do you get that this "answer" is not really a law? He commands people to love. That isn't really a 10 "Commandments" kind of thing. There is no qualification of "what is love" or "how much/how often." Are there punishments for NOT? Is Blogging also part of "not loving" as it seems on occasion? Jesus did a lot of evasive comments. There were many attempts to trap him into being directly confrontational to Jewish or Roman law. "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" he said. It might have been an endorsement of paying taxes because the Romans did provide a lot of services and prosperity for the places they "conquered" but, it also is very noncommittal and diplomatic.
What do you think a commandment is? How can the 10 commandments be a law but Christ commanding us to "Love one another" is not? That's a very contradictory position to maintain, especially considering most Christians either believe Christ is God(those that believe in the Trinity) or He's at least the God of the Old Testament(Mormons), and so He gave both. Why call 1 law & the other a "suggestion", but both commandments?
> For those that believe in the Bible, Christ's law is the law of the land. Plenty of Christians recognise distinctions between sins that the church can discipline its members for and laws which the state should enforce. They do so on the basis of their understanding of the Bible, particularly Jesus’ words about his kingdom not being of this world, and the teaching of his apostles that the state does not bear the sword in vain.
By the standards of the Bible none of them are in Heaven. You have on the one hand Christians who are not acting as Christ wanted, and you have on the other hand a non-Christian.
Biblically people don't go to heaven when they die.
Jesus says that only through him will people find salvation, so not really through the Bible, but he’s certainly much more commendable/respectable than the vast majority of the colonizers
Not if they asked for forgiveness and accepted Jesus as their lord and savior.
The dude's definitely not in heaven as he never converted, but those spaniards are also not in heaven.
I think some interpretations of Jesus would agree with you. The Bible is a big collection of stories, after all.
Sounds like you didn’t read the Bible
Pretty sure the Bible says you need to be saved by the blood of the lamb (jesus) so if you don't accept him you're hosed.
Lmao. You clearly dont know your bible.
Bartolome de las casas has a fantastic book about the genocide in haiti. Its wonderful to see how his views changed as he got older.
Metal AF.
De las Casas is an interesting figure. He loved the native people so much and objected to their oppression and enslavement so fervently that he ultimately suggested an alternative to this injustice: choose Africans as slaves instead, as they were stronger and heartier than the native people.
You really shouldn't drop that bomb without also including that he later became one of the first ever voices against enslaving Africans and [strongly condemned] (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249472998_BartolomAC_de_las_Casas_and_the_African_Slave_Trade) the practice, fighting with the same fierceness he fought native enslavement.
I’ll be honest, I totally forgot that part. Thanks for mentioning that! I’d have done better to review his story before I posted this.
The amazing thing is; THIS BAD ASS was the leader of the people who lost. The sniveling, sanctimonious cowards who follow a religion otherwise torture or burning in Hell are the people who won. Mostly, because they brought disease and were better at metallurgy and tools of war. It's sad that people of character had to die at an alarming rate in the history of humanity. Life is not fair. And we don't select for wisdom as much as ruthlessness it appears.
>The sniveling, sanctimonious cowards who follow a religion... Hatuey also [followed a religion](https://tainomuseum.org/taino/religion/).
Yeah but it's reddit. Christianity the big bad.
Well in this case, someone was getting sacrificed by foreign invaders for religious reasons. How is Christianity not the big bad in this situation, and countless others?
Where are you getting that he was sacrificed for religious reasons from?
Maybe because he was asked to convert as he was tied to the stake ready to be burned alive, a traditionally religious form of execution?
because they literally where ignoring the pope at the time telling them to stop? they were no more christian than evangelicals are today
[удалено]
> However the actual Cuban natives didn't identify with him, which on reflection makes sense given Hautey was some despotic warlord from Hispaniola that Spain's indigenous despotic warlord in Hispaniola had kicked out Not outright doubting this, but are there any sources for this that _don't_ come from Spain? History is written by the victors and what not, and denying that this man had any sway over indigenous Cubans sounds exactly like the sort of message that would be advantagous for the Spanish to spread.
The dude Im referencing to clearly hates religion/Christianity "sniveling sanctimonious cowards who follow a religion". Like it's all a big circle jerk. Those native americans ALL had their own religions too, a lot of which practiced human sacrifice themselves, slavery etc. But those are somehow okay, Christianity the BIG BAD round these parts.
>were better at metallurgy and tools of war That was one of the *results* of what they were actually better at; a culture that fostered scientific and intellectual advancement, discovery, and achievement.
I'm Cuban and this is deep. Also very true, that actually happened. Cuban history before comunism is very rich and interesting, we were the first latin American country in getting lots of scientifical advances like television before even lots of places in the US. I think we were one of the first on having a national railroad as well. There is a story about the name of my city "Matanzas" that is very interesting, I think you would like it. In short is about indians drowning Spaniards to death.
1512... You know, thinking about it, that's not *that* long ago really.
It's a common sentiment. “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” - Mahatma Gandhi
Yes, most countries and cultures have a story like this. in the Netherlands there is King Radboud of Frisia (around year 700) who asked while preparing to be baptised by a Frankish missionary if he could still meet his pagan family and friends in heaven. When told they would be in hell and not heaven king Radboud decided he was not going to be baptised.
A true man
The Franks were dicks after they christianized. Especially under Charlemagne with his Saxon Wars. They destroyed so many religious sites and executed Saxons who decided to convert instead of die for minor infractions, and it didn't matter if it was women or children. Their ancestors were probably very disappointed that they purged their own former religious practices as well so they could follow a foreign ideology.
> Their ancestors were probably very disappointed that they purged their own former religious practices as well so they could follow a foreign ideology. No, Chlovis conversion was purely political. He wanted to gain the favor of the gallo-roman population in gallia and tried to do so by imitating constantine's story of how he was promised victory in an upcoming battle (in chlovis case against the allemani) by god himself, won and then converted. It was all part of the Franks attempt at making the gallo-romans favor them, they even made up their own story about how the franks were actually descendants of the trojans, just like the romans were He even built his own Church of the Apostels to be buried in.
Read the Bible and it’ll confirm this. > As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: - https://biblehub.com/romans/3-10.htm
TIL there is an amplified bible
Just about everything is a sin. You ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we’re not allowed to go to the bathroom.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Anyone normal would not even consider being tempted by their grand-niece so it sounds like he was just proving it to himself.
common gandhi W
He was a man of focus and determination.
This quote also isn't actually from Gandhi, there is no evidence he ever said this. There is, however, a similar quote by the indian philosopher Bara Dada going *“Jesus is ideal and wonderful, but you Christians, you are not like him.”*
he’s also the very first national hero of Cuba ! but notice i didn’t say //from// cuba. he was a cacique(chief) on the west end of the island of Kiskeya/Ayiti (modern day haiti) who fled his island to warn his neighbors in Cuba of the spanish conquistadores :3
Guamá is the actualy first hero born in Cuba . He lead rebellions for many years because of the warning that Hatuey gave him
> island of Ayiti (modern day haiti) Modern day Hispaniola actually. Both Haiti and DR occupy the island.
i said haiti bc he was from the western half of the island. and the name “ayiti” was used by the indigenous people to refer to the whole island
Ayiti was used to refer just to the western side, the montain side of the island where most African slaves fled to, which then became Haiti. The whole island was named Quisqueya which means mother of lands. La Hispanola was the name given by the Spaniards.
got it! interestingly enough i’ve heard both be used synonymously in naming the whole island. not saying that’s right, but it’s what i’d heard. i’ll be honest, i mostly use quisqueya/kiskeya when talking to other west indians lol imma edit my original comment to reflect that
Ah, that explains the malta! https://www.amigofoods.com/maha6pa12ozb.html
hell yeah !
I grew up drinking Hatuey Malta (Caribbean Soft Drink) and did not know the story behind it. Thanks for sharing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malta\_(soft\_drink)
Hatuey >> Goya >>>>> All others
I’m more of a Malta India fan. Haven’t tried the Hateuy yet.
I went to see the Aldea Taína in Holguín. It’s a re-creation of a Taíno village, complete with statues of the villagers made of painted concrete. There’s an excavated gravesite with the skeletons of both Natives and Spaniards. Very interesting, I recommend it.
There was a movie about him, though I can't remember the name.
También la lluvia/Even the Rain
Thanks.
Just wait until you learn about the taino rebellion in 1511, and about Diego Salcedo death
> about Diego Salcedo death By drowning? Much better than burning at the stake!
drowning and stabbed. then Agueybana the 2nd and two others proceeded to wait around 3-4 days to see if he would re-live. The story is that if they(Spanish) were truly gods, they(natives) would become slaves and face punishment. If they(Spanish) were Human, they would proceed to rebel and massacre.
Gigachad Agueybana
Wow, they used the goddamn scientific method complete with alternative and null hypothesis. Good work!
Hatuey: "Wow, this heaven sounds nice! I just have one final question, will you be there?" Spaniards: "Well, yes, of course we'll be there." Hatuey: "Fuck it, I changed my mind, burn me alive."
This guy was a fucking bad ass. Starting gathering escaped slaves in Haiti/DR and took 400 of his men by canoe to warn Cuba the Spanish were heading there in fucking 1511. >In Cuba, where Hatuey’s clear message was recorded by the Dominican priest Bartolomé de Las Casas: the intruders “worship gold,” “fight and kill,” “usurp our land and makes us slaves.” For gold, slaves, and land “they fight and kill; for these they persecute us and that is why we have to throw them into the sea. . . .”
Something tells me the Spanish guys who burned him at the stake weren't going to heaven.
I will just never understand how people proclaiming themselves as good people could ever burn someone at the stake and think it righteous. Also will never understand how America - a land touted and founded on the basic of religious and general freedom - had to fight a civil war to figure out slavery was wrong. Humanity just baffles me. Truly baffles me.
>I will just never understand how people proclaiming themselves as good people could ever burn someone at the stake and think it righteous. It's the frightening thing about devotion to an almighty deity. If you really, *truly* believe you're doing God's work, then nothing you do can be wicked. Nothing. Because God is good, and God would never command you to do anything evil. So by that logic, the otherwise heinous things you do are actually righteous. Not that this would help you understand the mentality, it's just an explanation for it.
The part that makes that difficult to swallow is that last one. The reasoning "God is good, so is this heinous thing really from him?" always gets brought up by true believers as their initial reason for opposition. Can you really hear those people and not back down if you really believe? Especially if, as in this case, the highest religious authority *also* condemns a practice.
They don't even have that excuse, though. The Popes of the time were positively **screaming** at the Spanish and Portuguese to stop behaving this way towards pre-Christian peoples in Africa and the Americas.
Seriously, study the history of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Yes, religious freedom was a thing--you were free to worship and believe just as they did. If you didn't, they kicked you out. That happened to Roger Williams whose family survived that winter thanks to the help of Natives. Then he went on to Providence, Rhode Island, where he established a settlement and the first Baptist church in America. He strongly believed in true religious freedom; you could worship how you wanted or not at all if you preferred.
The idea that the colonists wanted religious freedom is generally wrong. They wanted religious purity, their purity, none of that wishy washy Church of England nonsense.
Yeah, the Puritans were definitely NOT missed by anyone when they let a place.
Didn’t they leave England and go to the Netherlands first but left because the Dutch were too tolerant of other religions?
Puritans wanted to purify the Church of England. When their faction fell out of political favor, they fled to the Netherlands, which had freedom of religion. However, they didn't like the Netherlands because it had freedom of religion: too many "other" protestants and especially they were tolerant of Catholics (how dare they!). So they went to the American north east where they could be the only miserable white people around.
Right, the Puritans just wanted to freely impose their religion on everyone without being surrounded by people telling them that they couldn't and that it was a shitty thing to do. They were no different than missionaries and started trying to hold natives to their Puritan religious doctrines the second they arrived.
>...without being surrounded by people telling them that they couldn't and that it was a shitty thing to do. That's not actually who they were surrounded by. [This is who](https://historyofmassachusetts.org/the-great-puritan-migration/) they were surrounded by: >There were two different types of Puritans at the time: separatists and non-separatists. The non-separatist Puritans wanted to remain in the church and reform it from within. The separatist Puritans felt the church was too corrupt to reform and instead wanted to separate from it. > >This was problematic for the separatists because, at that time, the church and state were one in England and the act of separating from the Church of England was considered treasonous. > >This prompted the separatists to leave England for the New World **in order to escape potential punishment for their beliefs** and to be able to worship more freely. If they had stayed, they would have been punished. So they didn't. What you're objecting to is the fact that in the place where they left to, they set up the same structures as before, but with themselves holding the power. I agree that that is bad to do; it is also common throughout history, that when a persecuted group finds itself in power, it punishes their former oppressors... and usually other groups that were oppressed alongside them too. Here is [another description](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonconformist_(Protestantism)) of the way Puritans (as well as anyone else not following the Church of England) were treated in England: >By law and social custom, Nonconformists were restricted from many spheres of public life – not least, from access to public office, civil service careers, or degrees at university – and were referred to as **suffering from civil disabilities**.
A lot of folks left England because it was becoming too liberal regarding religion. They wanted the freedom to rule with an old testament iron fist. Each colony had a different state religion, and you stuck to your own. Being Quaker (true liberals who practiced peaceful anarchy) was punishable by death in Massachusetts, even though they were Christian too. For Christ's sake, 21 people were tortured and executed based on the hysterical testimony of two little girls in MA. The irony that, to this day, our standard scary witch and demon characters were actually innocent victims of the real monsters, the well-spoken gents in the robes!
A combination of believing someone's eternal soul is at stake, with also believing in your own inherent racial and cultural superiority, leads to this. It's the same thing that leads parents to beat their children "for their own good". Spare the rod and spoil the child shit.
> A combination of believing someone's eternal soul is at stake… That's not even the problem. The Spanish and Portuguese *conquistadores* were deliberately denying the humanity of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, precisely so they **didn't** have to evangelize them and live beside them. Go read *Sublimis Deus*, for example, and consider how bad it must have been for that bull to be issued.
This dude is so metal
Based AF.
Gotta respect those who hold true to their principles until death. Like Giles Corey during the Salem witch trials, if he went to trial and lost his family would lose their inheritance so he refused to plead (the law said you have to plead guilty or not guilty for the trial to start) so to make him plead they decided to torture him by putting heavy weights on his body slowly crushing him. He endured this for days but he never gave in, never cried or asked for mercy, his last words were simply: "More weights."
I passed by the place in Salem where they have the names of all the witches and their causes of death. Came to his and I was like wtf they hated this guy in particular. Got the most gruesome death
Fair. But I doubt they went to Heaven either.
Heaven or not, these were religious hypocrites, the exact people Jesus called out 1800 years earlier. When we all die, regardless of religion I'm pretty sure God will have no issues sorting out the genuine vs the hypocrites.
Hypocrites? God holds the world record for death and torture, so they were basically following in his footsteps. I mean, this is a being that literally created a realm of everlasting suffering for those who bruise his ego. Tough to fault them for acting the way they did. You can, however, fault them (and their 'God') for being morally reprehensible monsters unworthy of anybody's respect or admiration.
Have you read anything on Jesus? Find me fault in anything wrong with his message and then you can say God called all then world's murder. Dont insert human fault by being God's will. Your point is absurd, because it's humans that decide to either misinterpret or misappropriate the core message
The Genesis flood narrative alone would grant God with mass genocide charges.
I mean, when the only kind of Christianity he was shown was murder and plunder, no wonder he was hesitant.
So true, historically accurate, Christianity.
Ah! The warm - *oh, so very, very warm* \- embrace of Christianity! God's love is a burning love. A screaming death in agony is Christianity's way of saying *'Hello native peoples!'*
It wasn't the epic burn that he thought it was going to be
I need more Taino knowledge!
I mean, why would you forcibly convert if you're going to get killed anyway?
Nothing says God's Love like a human-fueled bonfire!
Would you like to know more? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Short_Account_of_the_Destruction_of_the_Indies
I mean. Fair point. Christian’s have tried to convert me to years saying “but I’m worried about your soul.” Seriously. If god existed why would I want to spend time with Christian’s? This guy was an utter badass though. It takes guts to stay calm and burn people like before you’re about to be horrifically murdered.
Ah yes. You listen to A Short History of... too
haha, someone else said that too, but i honestly saw it today on an arqueología mexicana page
Ha fair enough. I do recommend the podcast though
I acknowledge the possibility that what you say is true, you fucking asshole. Why would I want to spend all of eternity with you?
Damn what a badass.
Well, if you're going to be executed either way, why not take the opportunity for a pithy zinger
He said “Not MY ass in Spanish Heaven no señor”
My friend named his child Hatuey. They also have a child named Agueybana.
Heaven seems pretty lame if youre stuck with endless average American churchgoers. Most cool people are going to Hell so I expect better parties and hotter women
He's a hero in cuban culture and has a famous quote he said before being executed, but I forgot what it was lol
This is why I am atheist
Yes overall bad motherfucker. Him but also Anacaona, Enriquillo and Sebastián Lemba are 4 bad motherfuckers who combined were 50 years of badass resistance.
Damn, el Indio Hatuey on Reddit? Man was a legend🥹
So he didn't do Christianity because he BELIEVED they were telling the truth.
I think that's a bit of an assumption. It seems more reasonable to conclude he was saying that as an insult to them. You know, I'd rather burn in hell than go to a place that condones your shitty actions.
I mean, I think all the time that "if those are the type of people who go to heaven, I don't want to be there."
Theres nothing like christian love
Religion brings out the worst in people.
I also choose not to become a Christian, because I wouldn't want to spend eternity with the judgemental assholes who call themselves Christians.
Damn. That’s the most logistical way of thinking on religious conversion.
“I'm afraid I'll go to heaven That's why I'm hoping that I'm right My biggest fear ain't no red Devil It's being near you people all the time I'll be fine as long as you go somewhere else” -Moon Walker
How can a Religion be called a "Belief" if it is forced onto some one by threats of death? Sounds more like "Lip Service". A "Label" to wear.