British propaganda - Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007) Discussion

[–] wintermonk 14 years ago

I think you should relax. Ever read Shakespeare's plays Henry IV parts one and two, or Henry V, or the Henry VI plays? He portrayed Joan of Arc as a harlot and a witch. He took many liberties with history in his "history plays." Of course, some of his history plays are also masterpieces, and he has been put up on a literary pedestal, so people forgive the liberties he took with history in his plays.

Anyway, so Spain was made the "bad guy" of the film Elizabeth: The Golden Age. People can make a movie to make Elizabeth out to be a villain if they want. She certainly wasn't perfect (nor was she portrayed as such).

Actually, I don't really feel that Elizabeth was really being potrayed as the "good guy" and Phillip as the "bad guy" quite so melodramatically. The second time I watched it, it felt to me more like Phillip was just a guy who needed to be humbled, he and his Kingdom. And that DID happen. Spain did decline after its wars with England, and England began its ascent to the most powerful empire on earth.

So, the film seems, to me, to be more about Protestantism vs. Catholicism. Many people in Europe, after the defeat of the Spanish Armada, saw it as intervention from God on behalf of Protestantism. Was it? Who knows. If one believes in God, one could, I suppose, make the case that God came to England's aid. And even if one wanted to make that case, that does not mean it was because England was better and Spain worse. It could simply be that Spain became too proud. Either way, it makes for an interesting story, and the film, I think, tried to portray God as defending the Protestants and humbling the Spanish Catholics. After all, protestantism might not have been perfect, but Catholicism, especially in Spain, certainly had done a lot for which, perhaps, it needed to be humbled and brought down. When Elizabeth is standing on the precipice overlooking the destruction of the Spanish Armada, and then it cuts to Phillip praying before a candle which is blown out, it seems obvious the film is trying to portray God has having punished the Spanish and saved the English.

And if you think the British deserved to be humbled, well, they got theirs too. The good ole United States of America would humble them two centuries laters. Now, the USA probably has its time of being humbled coming.

reply

[–] enriquegoni 14 years ago

If God wanted to humble Phillip II, he could have done better, because Phillip II won every war he fought (including the naval war against England). Also, if he wanted to help protestantism, he could have also done better, because the first war Spain lost was against a Catholic country in 1640 (France). Every country of the time had inquisition. In England, around 20,000 witches were burned. The last "witch" was convicted in England in the 20th century. So I don't think that Protestantism is less evil than Catholicism. They have very few differences.
Elizabeth is portrayed as very tolerant, concerned about murdering people, etc. The reality is that she was just as bad as any other monarch of the time. She burned hundreds of Catholic priests in England to make sure Protestantism would dominate.
There is a clear reason why they lied about Phillip II physical appearance; they didn't want him to be confused with an English person. Spanish play the role of fanatic intolerant murderers. English play the role of tolerant, human right defenders. If they had depicted Phillip II as blond with grey eyes (as he really was), he could have been confused with a good English person.
I'm relaxed, but if this movie wanted to change history, at least they could have done it with a good reason. They only change history to send 4 awful messages: Catholicism is bad, Protestantism is good, England is good, Spain is bad. Very weak.

reply

[–] wintermonk 14 years ago

First of all, Phillip II WAS humbled and Spain did bankrupt themselves. Nobody is saying he lost everything and England won everything. But England does begin a long ascent starting with Elizabeth and going on (not a perfectly straight upward line, but certainly a jagged line that tend toward upward) until Victoria. Spain was at its ascent during Phillip II reign, but it begins a decline strating with the defeat of the Armada.

Also, Elizabeth WAS a moderate. She was playing a difficult game, trying to make both Catholics and protestants happy. And she also didn't tolerate the radical puritans.

You're judging her by 21st century sensibilites. That's the problem. You think she sould have been like some 21st century liberal or something. That is incredibly unrealistic.

Bringing up the fact that witches were burned as an example of her intolerance is silly. People believed in magic and witchcraft back then! And many people did practice it back then. Just like today. Of course, today we realize that if some crazy people want to go out in the woods and chant some nonsense and sacrifice a cat, then whatever. (Though animal rights activits will certainly be ticked about the cat-killing) Point is, they believed in those things back then. They feared what witchcraft might do--indur God's wrath, invite the Devil to do something. Shakespeare's plays have examples of such magical meddling--the witches in Macbeth, for example. People weren't so scientific and logical back then. They weren't so "enlightened" as we are today and so "tolerant" and "open-minded." You would be hard pressed to find ANYBODY back then who would have thought you should just let witches run around freely.

"So I don't think that Protestantism is less evil than Catholicism. They have very few differences."

You need to do some serious research if you think that. Few Catholics and few protestants (those who actually practice their religion) would agree with you on that score, and who ought to know Catholicism better than Catholics? Who knows protestantism better than protestants?

And you're just plain wrong about her attitude toward Catholics. She wanted their support and tried to get along with them, but she was a protestant and favored it and believed it would be beneficial to her kingdom. It wasn't easy, as I've already mentioned. It was a turbulent time, and you judge her because she didn't wave a magic wand of peace and goodwill over her nation and the nation magically becomes some peaceful utopia with Catholics and protestant hugging each other on every street corner.

And she WAS protestant. Expecting her to not act like somethign she was is also silly. That she tried to be tolerant of Catholics despite being a protestant, and despite a lot of political pressure, says a lot about her.

reply

[–] enriquegoni 14 years ago

First of all, I think it is ridiculous to say that anyone of the time was moderated. England was a catholic country before Elizabeth. When she changed the country to protestantism, she had to deal with numerous catholic rebellions. She obviously had to use violence to change the country, so she had to kill catholic priests, just THE SAME way Phillip II killed protestant priests in Spain. Each country had their religious rules, and they had laws so those rules were respected. Witch hunting only happened in Britain and other protestant countries, because Martin Luther (the inventor of protestantism) believed on the possibility of a diabolical pact.

Secondly, Phillip II didn't want to invade England because he was a religious fanatic as the film invents. He wanted to invade England because England greatly supported piracy which hurted Spanish economy a lot. And because England supported the dutch rebels against Spain.

Third, Spanish failed invasion of England was not decisive AT ALL. It could have been a definitive blow for England, but it was clearly not a definitive blow for Spain. Spain and Portugal had, by far, the best navy of the time, and they didn't lose a lot of galeons when the plan failed.
After the Spanish plan failed, Elizabeth tried to deliver a fatal blow to Spain, the "counter-armada". She sent an expedition of 146 ships and 23.000 men to Lisbon to capture the city and force Portuguese revolt. The English plan failed. 13.000 English soldiers died and 70 English ships were lost. It was far more decisive than the Spanish armada failure. You obviously didn't know about this humilliating defeat because English try to cover their defeats at all costs.

The final result of the war was the treaty of London, very favourable to Spain. Spanish were allowed to use the English Channel freely, England would stop helping Holland and the pirates. So saying that the Spanish armada defeat was the starting point of Spanish decline is just laughable, because the war actually ended in a Spanish decisive victory.

The starting point of the Spanish decline was actually the death of Phillip II, because he was a great monarch, one of the best Spain has ever had. Obviously the British propaganda tries to put him down for all the pain he inflicted on their pride. Spain finally lost its status as the main power with the end of the 40 years war. It was necessary a combined effort of France, England, Holland, parts of Germany and severe internal revolts to finally defeat Spain in 1640. Portuguese and Dutch independences, and a list of infamous monarchs like Charles II (mentally handicapped) were the reason of the Spanish decline, not the failure of Spanish armada or anything British propaganda has invented.

Finally, the starting point of England to the world power was the creation of the UK, and, above all, their victory in the Napoleonic wars, which destroyed continental Europe leaving them in the best position. Not Elizabeth I.

reply

[–] Bilwick1 14 years ago

I'm well aware that Elizabeth was hardly a libertarian goddess, as any study of Irish history shows. My main question is: was the cause of individual liberty served better by an English victory over the Armada, than it would have been by a Spanish victory? I think all in all one can say, yes, it was. If nothing else, and whatever Phillip's motives, keeping that @#$^ing Inquisition out of England was a good thing.

reply

[–] enriquegoni 14 years ago

Inquisition punished people who said bad things about God, or practised other religions like protestantism. Protestantism was seen as heresy and very wrong. In total, between 2,000 and 3,000 people were executed through history by the Spanish inquisition.
In England, Catholic religion was pursued, Catholic priests were burned. In addition, around 2500 witches were burned. In most of the cases, the mother was burned with her children (to stop the diabolical "seed").
There was only one witch hunting in Spain, Zugarramurdi (1610), but it was, in fact, stoped by the Inquisition.
If you think that England had individual freedoms like religious freedom, political freedom or freedom of the press you are totally wrong, and obviously biased.

reply

[–] sdwesterling 14 years ago

Wow what a last sentence: "you are totally wrong, and obviously biased."

Reading all of your posts I would have to say that you are in fact just a tad biased yourself!

Oh well I suppose no one is without bias completely

reply

[–] elisabetta611 14 years ago

Elizabeth did not "burn hundreds of Catholic priests", dearie. Nor did Philipp II defeat England.

reply

[–] MsEmmaFrost 12 years ago

Super old thread, but whatever.

English witches were hanged, not burnt. And England has one of the lowest rates of witch-executions in Europe. Most witches were persecuted in the areas that suffered religious disturbance and England, thanks to Elizabeth's remarkable moderation, was not one of them.

The Act of Uniformity was surprisingly lax when it came to Catholicism. All it required was that people would be outwardly Anglican. Which was, if I may say, a political need: obedience to the Pope means obedience to a foreign monarch and you can't have two conflicting loyalties. At least not in the 16th century, when the Papacy was still a temporal power and the notion of State/Church separation was inconceivable.

The laws against the Catholics only got harder after Rome released the Catholic English subjects of their obligations to their Queen in 1570. After that, Catholicism was, in fact, a political liability and was treated as such, though with far less violence than Edward VI's measures or Louis XIV's anti-Huguenot laws. Not to mention Spain's own persecution against religious dissidents and minorities.

In the end, Elizabeth wasn't a religious fanatic: she was a woman raised in the mild Humanistic Evangelism of Cambridge. And, as she herself said, had "no desire to make windows into mens souls".

That said, the film was heavy-handed, and Philip's looks and walk were annoying. But in a film about Elizabeth, I would not expect the Spanish aggression to be shown under a positive light.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Everyone is replaceable. Even you.

reply

[–] anticaria 12 years ago

dear missemmafrost,

stop attempting to sweep under the rug the hideous fact that england was a mere piratical nation in which state-sponsored terrorism at the high seas against the spanish was happily encouraged.. the monarch of such a willingly mercenary state made her no better than the cutthroats and thugs she sent out to fetch another nation's rightful property..

again, enough with the elizabethan 'fairy tale'.. the woman gave her full blessing to thieves, thugs and cuttthroats -no better than the somali pitates of our time who continue to terrorize the east coast of africa- so they would go forth and do her/england's dirty bidding..

it wasn't the fall from her 16th-floor penthouse that killed her, it was the stop

reply

[–] MsEmmaFrost 12 years ago

You didn't address anything I've said.

Yes, Tudor England is the climax of English pirates and privateers and I have never seen anyone denying it. I personally don't think that the treasures taken from the colonies were Spain's rightful property as much as the product of looting. And you know what they say "ladrón que roba a ladrón tiene cien años de perdón".

Elizabethan England was an awe-inspiring era of political advancement and cultural innovation. It is the start of England's imperial road. Piracy was part of it and all nations have pirates, so I don't see how the English are especially worse than anybody else. Except that you feel that being really good at sailing and targeting Spain are somehow crimes worse than those of the Spanish or French or Portuguese pirates, in which case I feel there is no point in debating anything with you.

But, again, I have never seen anyone denying the actions of English pirates and privateers. That doesn't make any of the historical mistakes you have committed here regarding the Reformation and Elizabeth's policies on religion disappear, though.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Everyone is replaceable. Even you.

reply

[–] anticaria 12 years ago

"""""""""""Yes, Tudor England is the climax of English pirates and privateers and I have never seen anyone denying it. I personally don't think that the treasures taken from the colonies were Spain's rightful property as much as the product of looting. And you know what they say "ladrón que roba a ladrón tiene cien años de perdón".""""""""""

LOL umm tell me, dear, didn't the british empire 'pillage, loot and rape' the rest of the world infinitely more painfully and pervasively than spain ever did? yes, they did..

again.. colonialism has existed for millennia.. yet suddenly imperial spain continues to be deemed worthy of demonization by the british, the most hypocritically rapacious 'colonizers' the world has ever seen.. hilarious hypocrisy, don't you think?

again, as a british 'apologist', you have no moral standing WHATSOEVER to criticize other empires' 'MORAL' shortcomings, least of all the spanish empire, an empire whose sheer wealth the english only wished they had pioneered and profited from themselves.. LOL

the reality is that the spanish brought humanism, religion, art, science and learning to the americas, founding cities, universities, cathedrals, hospitals and all manner of civilized endeavors, leading to the columbian exchange, the greatest dissemination of ideas, knowledge and technologies since the hispano-muslim and later european renaissance.. were the spanish supposed to never apply the concept of mercantilism and make their colonial/imperial enterprise a profitable endeavor? were they supposed to somehow extract no wealth whatsoever to fund the enormous expense entailed by maintaining the first global empire on which the sun never set, pay its european backers and creditors as well as boost the first globally-traded currency, the spanish real, which fuled the world's economy from asia to the americas to europe? you must live in fairy tale land.. LOL

again, i could forgive ignorance and naivete to a degree, but i'm not about to forgive blatant belligerence and obtuse hypocrisy, sorry.. ;-)

i believe the spanish gave the americas every bit as much as they profited from it: they gave it a universal religion and language, an art and architecture medium which would lead to the creation of the finest collection of architecturally and historically rich colonial cities in the world, a feat never seen since the romans, except the spanish accomplished theirs on a much grander global scale than the romans could have ever dreamed of.. just look at the number of unesco world heritage sites in the hispanic world? for starters, mexico alone holds the most such sites in the world after italy and spain, the bulk of those sites consisting of former spanish colonial foundations far surpassing any such civilizing legacy carried out by the brits.. then you have the rest of north america, mesoamerica, south america and asia and the vast colonial wealth of cities, churches, universities, missions and the like left by the spanish, constituting a humanizing body of art, architecture and humanism which the english never even came close to matching around the world, for the simple fact that the brits only took, took and then took some more.. at least the spanish gave back as much as they took..

so again, spare me the moralizing 'fairy tale' of the elizabethan age..

it wasn't the fall from her 16th-floor penthouse that killed her, it was the stop

reply

[–] MsEmmaFrost 12 years ago

First of all, I know that you, like me, are not a native English speaker, but the lack of capitalisation makes it really hard to follow what you are saying. I am quite impressed by your level of aggression, considering that my initial post was about something you got wrong and had nothing to do with piracy or colonialism but with witch-hunting and the Act of Uniformity. I even agreed that the portrayal of Philip II was bad.

Also, you should know that using "dear" is condescending and not conductive when debating something that is nothing but a historical point. Also, for full disclosure I'd like to say that I am not English or British and therefore I have no need to use or propagate any form of British or English propaganda (and about and issue that is over 400 years old!). I am, though, a citizen of one of Spain's former colonies and a researcher on English history.

That said, I'll address the only point of my post that you answered.

didn't the british empire 'pillage, loot and rape' the rest of the world infinitely more painfully and pervasively than spain ever did? yes, they did..

Yes, they did. Like all empires, the British empire committed many horrible crimes. Imperialism left horrible scars. I don't think that British Imperialism is worse than Spanish colonialism, though.

again.. colonialism has existed for millennia.. yet suddenly imperial spain continues to be deemed worthy of demonization by the british, the most hypocritically rapacious 'colonizers' the world has ever seen.. hilarious hypocrisy, don't you think?

No, colonialism (as in Modern Colonialism, not the Roman/Greek version of it) started in the 15th century and ended in the 18th to be replaced by Imperialism, which is a different beast.

I don't think the British colonialism was more rapacious than the Portuguese, Spanish, French, Belgiam, German, Russian, Japanese, etc. And, to be honest, the British Empire receives a lot of criticism.

again, as a british 'apologist', you have no moral standing WHATSOEVER to criticize other empires' 'MORAL' shortcomings, least of all the spanish empire, an empire whose sheer wealth the english only wished they had pioneered and profited from themselves.. LOL

I am not a British propagandist. I am a history researcher. And you have no say on my morals about anything because this is not a moral debate, but a historical one.

I can, however, make note of the moral shortcomings of the Spanish empire just like you do of the British one. I can, in fact, make note of the shortcomings of anything I want.

the reality is that the spanish brought humanism, religion, art, science and learning to the americas, founding cities, universities, cathedrals, hospitals and all manner of civilized endeavors, leading to the columbian exchange, the greatest dissemination of ideas, knowledge and technologies since the hispano-muslim and later european renaissance.. were the spanish supposed to never apply the concept of mercantilism and make their colonial/imperial enterprise a profitable endeavor? were they supposed to somehow extract no wealth whatsoever to fund the enormous expense entailed by maintaining the first global empire on which the sun never set, pay its european backers and creditors as well as boost the first globally-traded currency, the spanish real, which fuled the world's economy from asia to the americas to europe? you must live in fairy tale land.. LOL

What you describe are the long-term positive (from a Western POV) results of colonialism and that can be said about most colonisation processes, including the British.

The downside (for the colonised population) was slavery, oppression, sickness, cultural destruction and genocide. And that can be said about all forms of colonisation (with varying degrees, of course, as scarcely populated regions suffered less).

again, i could forgive ignorance and naivete to a degree, but i'm not about to forgive blatant belligerence and obtuse hypocrisy, sorry.. ;-)

I am displaying none of those traits. You, however, are belligerent and hypocritical by saying that, somehow, Spanish colonisation is better than other forms of it.

i believe the spanish gave the americas every bit as much as they profited from it

The native population would strongly disagree.

they gave it a universal religion and language

You mean they destroyed the native religions and languages to imposed foreign ones, right? Spanish and Catholicism are not more universal than quechua and animism.

an art and architecture medium which would lead to the creation of the finest collection of architecturally and historically rich colonial cities in the world

In your opinion. Technotitlán was quite impressive by itself. And I am not particularly fond of the Colonial style.

a feat never seen since the romans, except the spanish accomplished theirs on a much grander global scale than the romans could have ever dreamed of..

I am not sure what to say about this. But you do realise that having a big empire is not, by itself, a merit? If that were the case, the British Empire commanded a quarter of the world.

just look at the number of unesco world heritage sites in the hispanic world? for starters, mexico alone holds the most such sites in the world after italy and spain, the bulk of those sites consisting of former spanish colonial foundations far surpassing any such civilizing legacy carried out by the brits.. then you have the rest of north america, mesoamerica, south america and asia and the vast colonial wealth of cities, churches, universities, missions and the like left by the spanish, constituting a humanizing body of art, architecture and humanism which the english never even came close to matching around the world, for the simple fact that the brits only took, took and then took some more.. at least the spanish gave back as much as they took..

Well, the British form of colonialism was based on business and giving a higher leeway to the settlements, so they didn't need to build huge cities. Also, the Thirteen Colonies were established in scarcely populated areas, without any metropolis to wipe out (like Cuzco or Technotitlán) and the Protestant/Puritan aesthetics are much drabber than the Baroque ones. The British colonists had no interest in building any of those monuments. And even after the American Revolution, the American style continue to be quite sober.

About "taking, taking" you do realise that London barely control the American colonies, right? That they were given an extraordinary level of independence until 1763? That the colonists sold their products instead of having to offer them as a feudal tribute? That the British leniency over America allowed the creation and development of American institutions in ways that we, ex Spanish colonies, never managed to do, right? Because even after independence our whole system was dependent, weak and poorly organised and we still struggle to make democracy a lasting value.

so again, spare me the moralizing 'fairy tale' of the elizabethan age..

I'd spare you with glee. I am unsure why you watched this film in the first place. But, let me say: Elizabethan England is a great, golden age for England. How it affected Spain is frankly irrelevant in this film.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Everyone is replaceable. Even you.

reply

[–] anticaria 12 years ago

"""""""""""But, let me say: Elizabethan England is a great, golden age for England."""""""""""

LOL yeah, i'm sure england had quite a 'GOLDEN age' with all the looted spanish gold the english made off with.. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

as i said.. STOP APOLOGIZING for the merry band of pirate, thugs and thieves that made up elizabethan england's 'robbing hoods' of the seas with the FULL BLESSING of their so-called enlightened queen, emmafrost.. that is one FAIRY TALE we can stop glamorizing.. ;-D

elizabethan england nor any of its apologists have any 'MORAL' GROUND to condemn spain's imperial morality, especially when the english were just JEALOUS of what they couldn't have.. <wink>

it wasn't the fall from her 16th-floor penthouse that killed her, it was the stop

reply

[–] MsEmmaFrost 12 years ago

Again, you decline to reply to most of my post.

LOL yeah, i'm sure england had quite a 'GOLDEN age' with all the looted spanish gold the english made off with.. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, England had a Golden Age and it was not solely due to economy. The Gold Age title refers to the fact that:

* It was a peaceful time for a nation that had been torn all too often by civil discontent and foreign wars (the last of which was the Anglo-Spanish alliance under Mary I that costed England Calais);

* The cultural explosion under the Tudor and Stuart reigns;

* The resolution of the religious conflict that placed England away from the horrors of religious war by finding a middle point between Rome and Geneva;

* The advancement of Parliamentary power and of the central government;

* The consolidation of a new economical organisation that would radically change the world: capitalism;

* The emergence of a new nationalism;

* The start of the Imperial road that would make of England the world's superpower in later centuries.

Spanish gold was not the key of those changes as most of the treasures captured by pirates were kept by them, as they were private enterprises.

as i said.. STOP APOLOGIZING for the merry band of pirate, thugs and thieves that made up elizabethan england's 'robbing hoods' of the seas with the FULL BLESSING of their so-called enlightened queen, emmafrost.. that is one FAIRY TALE we can stop glamorizing.. ;-D

I am not apologising for anything as I have no responsibility whatsoever in this matter. And I ask you, again, who has ever denied the fact that there were English pirates? All I said is that piracy was a common activity in the 16th century.

And Elizabeth was not enlightened. She was born a good two centuries before the Lumières. She was, however, a moderated woman who was raised in Cambridge Evangelism and did not consider religion a matter to die for. I would recommend you to read David Starkey's masterful biography of Elizabeth, especially "Apprenticeship" but I wager you are not interested in learning English history.

elizabethan england nor any of its apologists have any 'MORAL' GROUND to condemn spain's imperial morality, especially when the english were just JEALOUS of what they couldn't have.. <wink>

Elizabethan England can't clearly defend itself, being only a historical label and all. And I have yet to see apologist here.

This issue has no moral ground to be discussed as it is quite clear that every nation has done horrible things. And being a 400 years old event, it's hardly something that calls for any moral analysis.

I can't speak for the whole English nation's feelings of jealousy, though I doubt there were any.

Lastly, your emoticons and smilies are quite confusing.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Everyone is replaceable. Even you.

reply

[–] anticaria 12 years ago

yes, an english 'golden' age built on 'spanish gold' looted by the 'angelic' elizabeth I's merry band of thugs and piratical terrorists.. one of europe's most notorious cases of state-sponsored terrorism on the high seas perpetrated against the property of another european sovereig nation.. how sweet!

it wasn't the fall from her 16th-floor penthouse that killed her, it was the stop

reply

[–] MsEmmaFrost 12 years ago

Once again refusing to answer what I said...

yes, an english 'golden' age built on 'spanish gold' looted by the 'angelic' elizabeth I's merry band of thugs and piratical terrorists..

Not really. The gold the Spanish took from the colonies played a small part in the English economy. Not to mention that it was already drying up after decades of extraction.

Elizabeth wasn't an angel. She was an efficient, successful monarch, though.

one of europe's most notorious cases of state-sponsored terrorism on the high seas perpetrated against the property of another european sovereig nation.. how sweet!

Piracy was not state-sponsored. Privateers and corsairs were. And they were sponsored by every European state at the time.

The fact that you argue taking gold and silver from a conquered and decimated people is somehow better than robbery astounds me. Also, you need to check what State-terrorism is.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Everyone is replaceable. Even you.

reply

[–] anticaria 12 years ago

""""""""""""The fact that you argue taking gold and silver from a conquered and decimated people is somehow better than robbery astounds me.""""""""""""""

LOL and the fact that you even think that 'conquering, colonizing, evangelizing, civilizing, empire-building and mounting a monumental infrastructure-building program spanning the globe and constituing the first instance of a truly globally interconnected economy and currency, as the spaniards accomplished and set in motion for the first time in human history from europe to the americas to asia as part of the columbian exchange,' is merely tantamount to 'robbery' astounds me..

and the sad thing is that you're just a hopeless apologist all too quick to demonize the spanish as the devil's spawns without the slightest clue as to what a herculean task was entailed by spain's monumental global program of infrastructure-building and civilizing, a feat not seen since the time of the romans..

oh no, to you, the spanish merely 'took gold and silver' and gave nothing back in return, betraying the same petty jealousy the english have always displayed vis a vis the spanish empire, the kind of jealousy usually seen in folks who only wished they could have been the ones to profit from such wealth as the spaniards rightfully came about through conquest and monumental effort and loss of human life..

after all, conquest has fueled much of the advancement of civilization through the ages.. i.e., those with the technology to advance society conquered lesser cultures and so on and so forth through the millennia.. this was nothing whatsoever unique to spain or its empire, but i would not expect an apologist such as yourself to grasp that, as you seem to think that.. spanish=evil, english=saintly.. <yawn>

perhaps you'd care to tell us exactly what commodities the spanish were supposed to manufacture out of thin air in order to pay for the titanic cost of maintaining their global empire and the global economy at the time? mexican jumping beans? LOL

it wasn't the fall from her 16th-floor penthouse that killed her, it was the stop

reply

[–] MsEmmaFrost 12 years ago

Your rants are quite incoherent and that makes them hard to understand and even harder to reply to.

And you refuse to reply to my arguments.

English colonialism had quite an impressive legacy alongside economic usage of the colonies, just look at United States, Canada and Australia.

Again, I have never deionised Spain. Spain conquered two major civilisations (I refuse to refer to any civilisation as "lesser") and imposed their language, religion and culture while taking away its riches. What Spain did is in no way different than any other colonial enterprise.

You are the only apologist here. I simply made a post about your mistakes regarding witch-hunting and the Act of Uniformity.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Everyone is replaceable. Even you.

reply

[–] baran_erik 8 years ago

Nobody here has accused the Spanish of being "the devil's spawn". What HAS been said, basically, is that you're a hypocrite. You're trumpeting of Spanish conquests as a Great Leap Forward for the people they defeated and stole from, while at the same time crying because English pirates stole from the Spanish what they had stolen for the New World people. You might think that the Spanish did great things in the Americas, but the people who were living there would strenuously disagree with you.

reply

[–] LocoHero 9 years ago

This entire thread has me thoroughly entertained! You understand that you are trying to debate something that has happened almost 500 year ago right? Not last week...

Emma is making valid points and you are just sputtering the same things over and over again... kind of kills your credibility on the topic your debating..

anticaria has no valid arguments and can't even troll with any skill or effectiveness.

I've just ripped him apart so badly he'll be crying into his sombrero for the next 20 years.

😀

reply

[–] anticaria 9 years ago

locoweed, aka useless-153, the board's resident uneducated troll, attempts to make a point but fails yet again, as usual:

This entire thread has me thoroughly entertained! You understand that you are trying to debate something that has happened almost 500 year ago right? Not last week...

'almost 500 year ago'? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! that's 'almost 500 years ago,' you twit.. talk about killing your own credibility with that god-awful grammar of yours.. LOL!!!!!!!!! 😂

Emma is making valid points and you are just sputtering the same things over and over again... kind of kills your credibility on the topic your debating..

'on the topic your debating'? LOL that ought to be 'on the topic you're debating,' you fool.. LOL!! 😉

face it, you can't spell or handle even the most basic level of english grammar.. hence you're the last person that should be lecturing anyone on the issue of 'credibility,' you uneducated troll.. LOL!!!

the bottom-line is that this film is just a pile of worthless propaganda aimed at the typically sophomoric and uneducated british twit, like yourself, nothing more..

sad but true! <gasp>

cheerios, mate! now go brush that rotted tooth of yours before it decays and falls out.. 😉

it wasn't the fall from her 16th-floor penthouse that killed her, it was the landing

reply

[–] anticaria 9 years ago

btw, locoweed.. why the f@ck are you still reading and responding to my posts? I thought you had me filtered.. you angry little liar, you! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

everyone knows you love to stalk and read every one of my postings, you dimwit! you're fooling no one but yourself.. as usual! LOL

sad but true.. <gasp>

it wasn't the fall from her 16th-floor penthouse that killed her, it was the landing

reply

[–] doc-hawk 12 years ago

i'm sure england had quite a 'GOLDEN age' with all the looted spanish gold the english made off with.. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
_____________________________________________________________

This wouldn't be the gold that the Spaniards raped and murdered the native inhabitants of the Americas for would it? Or was Cortez from some alternate Spain when he destroyed the Aztec Empire, which had existed long before the Romans left the Iberian Peninsula? Perhaps the Conquistadors who tossed plague infested blankets into Indian villages and engaged in genocidal rape were really a bunch of blokes from Surrey? Oh wait, I forgot: the Pope divided the Western Hemisphere between Spain and Portugal, so that made the butchery all justified and even demanded by the Will of God, right?

reply

[–] anticaria 12 years ago

LOL hey, doc-doc.. what conquest in history over a violent empire like the aztecs has NOT been bloody? please tell us.. LOL

can't wait to hear the answer.. ;-D

in the meantime, here's a newsflash for ya: the aztecs were not a peaceful bunch.. they were a violently warlike, sacrificial, and slavery-based civilization who terrorized their neighbors.. stop trying to paint them as 'peaceful little victims'..

the spaniards simply had no other option..

it wasn't the fall from her 16th-floor penthouse that killed her, it was the stop

reply

[–] doc-hawk 12 years ago

Please enlighten us all with the part of my post that said the Aztecs were 'peaceful little victims'. To quote you, "can't wait to hear the answer." And your comment that "the spaniards simply had no other option" is patently laughable. You come across a new civilization and your only option is to annihilate them and steal their gold? And then justify with centuries of genocidal rape and insult the dead culture by saying "they had no other option?" You're a seriously demented puppy if you really believe that nonsense.

As for non-violent conquests (and ultimate overthrow) or aggressive cultures, I refer you to the book Possessing the Pacific by Stuart Banner.

reply

[–] anticaria 12 years ago

doc-doc.. you're still ineptly attempting to depìct the warlike and violently sacrificial and slavery-based mesoamerican indians as innocent little victims.. the spaniards had no option but to be brutal since they were hopelessly OUTNUMBERED in every respect against an extremely brutal enemy.. trying to appease the amerindians would've been futile and ultimately horribly and stupidly self-defeating for spain.. the spaniards were in the new world to conquer and convert and establish a profitable enterprise, same as every other conquering empire before or since, not make nice with these people.. stop trying to view 500-year-old history through the rosy sentimental morality of our own modern age for that is ludicrous.. historical events must be viewed within the proper CONTEXT of their own time.. i.e., every other european power would have acted every bit as brutally and decisively as spain did.. and please stop these nonsense insinuations about a mass genocide.. european diseases were unintentionally responsible for the bulk of the amerindians' deaths, and yet, to this day, millions of latin americans survive who are of full amerindian blood.. had there been a cultural and human genocide as you suggest, 99% of modern latin americans would be purely white and there would be no trace whatsoever of pre-columbian/mesoamerican architecture or folklore anywhere, which is hardly the case.. again, the evidence does not support this absurd notion of a 'massive genocide' that 'wiped out' all mesoamerican ethnic groups and their culture that has been foolishly suggested..

in the end, the spanish bequeathed the americans a modern, humanistic culture, a language and a christian faith, and it was in fact the tireless efforts of the early spaniards that actually helped to preserve the native cultures' historical pre-columbian record by helping to translate, and thus preserve for posterity, the many priceless manuscripts and codices found in mesoamerica, so that all that came before would not be lost forever.. yet somehow spain gets none of the credit in spearheading such monumental ethnographic preservation efforts.. the likes of you find it much easier to simply dismiss the entire spanish imperial effort as the mere work of destructive, genocidal demons.. we're in the 21st century.. time to put that silly 'black legend' to bed and view historical events from a much broader perspective, don't you think?

the silly 'spaniards=100%evil, amerindians=100%good' silliness has grown old..

it wasn't the fall from her 16th-floor penthouse that killed her, it was the stop

reply

[–] doc-hawk 12 years ago

Again I challenge you to point out anywhere in any post that I've suggested that the Aztecs, Incas or Mayans "innocent little victims." I'm fully aware of how fierce their cultures were. And other European powers were faced with people who were every bit as fierce without the genocide that the Iberians inflicted in Mesoamerica. The English were harsh when they arrived in Massachusetts and Virginia, but no where near as bad as the Iberians. The French were able to coexist on a mostly friendly basis with the tribes they encountered. And the German/Prussians were the most benevolent of all of the Europeans (for a great look at how they treated Indians look at the book "Mohawk Saint".)

As for these things being over and done for 500 years, guess again. Native Americans throughout the Americas are still being persecuted by people of Spanish and Portuguese descent. Only in Norte Mexico (what today is the American Southwest) were the Indians able to fight back and that's because of the frontier being so far removed from Mexico City that it was too expensive to defend. The Comanche were so successful that if it hadn't been for Anglo involvement (at the behest of the Mexican government)that they would have pushed Hispanics out of the area from Texas to western Arizona.

Just as an aside, you're the one who started all of this dredging up 500 years worth of bad blood by whining about the English "stealing Spanish gold" that the Spaniards had stolen from other people and then trying to justify with your "they had no choice" nonsense.

reply

[–] vinidici 7 years ago

the spaniards had no option but to be brutal since they were hopelessly OUTNUMBERED in every respect against an extremely brutal enemy..

anticaria,

You repeatedly label anyone who counters anything you say as "English apologists;" but what are YOU but a SPANISH apologist?

And this way you have of continually glorifying the Spaniards for defeating and conquering the natives when "hopelessly outnumbered" is just laughable, because Cortez and his fighting men, for instance, had a little help from other indigenous tribes who were enemies of the Aztecs; but to hear YOU talk, the Spanish defeat of forces outnumbering themselves is the equivalent of ONE GUY who's surrounded by several hundred enemies with blood in their collective eye, but nevertheless punches out the entire mob and knocks them all flat on their keisters without even working up a sweat!

You and your never-ending rambling about how "evil" England was and how blissfully benign imperialist Spain was in every way! The truth is that BOTH of them were guilty of innumerable, heinous crimes against the aboriginal / indigenous peoples of their respective territories of xonquest and colonization -- but "Old Faithful" in Yellowstone National Park will cease its clockwork spouting before YOU ever surrender your cherished notion that Conquistador Spain was as cuddly and warm-and-fuzzy as a teddybear! (Which is patently untrue of either Spanish OR British empires.)

Secret Message, HERE!--->CONGRATULATIONS!!! You've discovered the Secret Message!

reply

[–] vinidici 7 years ago

the spaniards had no option but to be brutal since they were hopelessly OUTNUMBERED in every respect against an extremely brutal enemy..

And, as usual, you never address the fact that Spain conquered, colonized, and exploited the New World territories and its peoples for CENTURIES! And long after the natives were Christenized and had adopted the Spanish language and culture! Even to this day the wealthiest and ruling classes of Latin American countries are those of Spanish descent; while among the rest of Mexico's populace, for example, abject poverty is the norm. I seriously believe that, historically, Spain has perpetrated far more harm and injustice towards the indigenous peoples of its conquests than even the British Empire did.

Secret Message, HERE!--->CONGRATULATIONS!!! You've discovered the Secret Message!

reply

[–] baran_erik 8 years ago

Whatever the Aztecs were or were not, that didn't give the papists the right to invade them, kill them and loot them. Kind of like the American invasion of Iraq. Yeah, Saddam was a bad guy, but that didn't give America the right to invade it.

reply

[–] vinidici 7 years ago

Or was Cortez from some alternate Spain when he destroyed the Aztec Empire, which had existed long before the Romans left the Iberian Peninsula?

Most of what you've stated, doc-hawk, is the ugly and unvarnished truth; however:

Where can one find any information stating that the Aztec civilization and empire predates the age of the Roman Empire? My net browsing on the subject of the Aztecs and when they flourished as an empire has yielded dates corresponding to the Middle Ages era of the Old World -- which is still many centuries after Rome fell to the Goths and other barbarian hordes during the 5th Century.

Secret Message, HERE!--->CONGRATULATIONS!!! You've discovered the Secret Message!

reply

[–] baran_erik 8 years ago

Is stealing from a thief really all that bad of a crime? Where did those Spanish ships get the gold in their holds? It wasn't "Spanish gold" anymore than it was Spanish land they stole it from.

reply

[–] anticaria 12 years ago

""""""""""""""""""Well, the British form of colonialism was based on business and giving a higher leeway to the settlements, so they didn't need to build huge cities. Also, the Thirteen Colonies were established in scarcely populated areas, without any metropolis to wipe out (like Cuzco or Technotitlán) and the Protestant/Puritan aesthetics are much drabber than the Baroque ones. The British colonists had no interest in building any of those monuments. And even after the American Revolution, the American style continue to be quite sober.

About "taking, taking" you do realise that London barely control the American colonies, right? That they were given an extraordinary level of independence until 1763? That the colonists sold their products instead of having to offer them as a feudal tribute? That the British leniency over America allowed the creation and development of American institutions in ways that we, ex Spanish colonies, never managed to do, right? Because even after independence our whole system was dependent, weak and poorly organised and we still struggle to make democracy a lasting value."""""""""""""""""""

LOL oh please.. are you even able to take one deep breath without spewing a tired and misguided apology of some sort or another in defense of the english, emma? LOL breathing and clearing your thoughts from time to time can do your perspective a world of good.. you should try it sometime.. ;-)

fyi: i was speaking of the legacy of rapaciousness and cultural barrenness the british bequeathed their former colonies around the world, not just in north america.. their complete disregard as far as investing in the cultural institutions and intruments of humanization in their conquered territories and the resulting and shameful lack of any unesco world heritage sites as compared to the massive number of such colonial sites to be found in the former spanish territories throughout the hispanic world, showing what a culturally barren embarrassment british colonialism proved to be and what ruthless 'takers' the british were, while representing one of the shining glories of spain's former empire.. for it shows that spain and portugal treated their overseas territories as if they were extensions of the iberian kingdoms themselves, which is what they were, thus investing a massive amount of imperial resources to building the necessary imperial infrastructure around the globe, a mind-boggling labor of humanization which bequeathed the modern world architectural and engineering marvels as well as religious and university foundations which were the first of their kind anywhere and without peer in the colonial world..

but oh no, to hear you tell it, the spaniards were mere 'robbers' who just 'took gold and silver' and gave nothing back.. as if! LOL

as i said, england, its former empire and its 'apologists' have no moral ground whatsoever on which to stand hurling stones at the spanish empire.. and yet, the english apologists merely avail themselves of the same old black legend nonsense of yore that's been used to demonize the reputation of imperial spain around the world as the mere work of the devil's spawns just because the brits were covetous of the enormous wealth and breath of spain's global empire, which is of course why the brits had to mount a full-on propaganda campaign to discredit the spaniards and depict them as 'demons,' i.e., just so they could rationalize, justify and absolve themselves of their terrorist role in aiding spain's rebelious enemies in in their terrorit activities around the world at every turn.. <yawn>

meanwhile, 500 years have passed.. is it not time to give the silly apologetic 'elizabethan fairy tale' a rest and stop perpetuating tired and dated elizabethan propaganda? i think perhaps the time has come, don't you? ;-)

the amusing thing is that, while the loss of their beloved empire has made the brits a lot more self-aware in recent times, they still seem oddly unable to let go of these silly propanganda-driven gems of demonization, historical inaccuracy and anachronism on film.. go figure.. i guess old habits do die hard even in this day and age.. <sigh>

it wasn't the fall from her 16th-floor penthouse that killed her, it was the stop

reply

[–] scm1086 12 years ago

This entire thread has me thoroughly entertained! You understand that you are trying to debate something that has happened almost 500 year ago right? Not last week...

Emma is making valid points and you are just sputtering the same things over and over again... kind of kills your credibility on the topic your debating.. and is frankly pretty annoying. IMO!

reply

[–] anticaria 12 years ago

"""""""""""Emma is making valid points and you are just sputtering the same things over and over again... kind of kills your credibility on the topic your debating.."""""""""""

on the topic 'your' debating? LOL dude, you can't even spell and you have the nerve to challenge my credibility? LOL hilarious..

all emma's done is reduce the entire empire-building endeavor carried out by the spaniards in establishing history's first global empire, first global economy and first global currency to the level of mere evil deeds of 'robbers'.. and yet you find such a grotesque bit of mindlessly undiscerning propaganda 'valid'? LOL

listen, i think it's admirable that you're coming to the rescue of your fellow elizabethan era apologist, but honestly, emma does not need you to help her drown in enept, 500-year-old propaganda.. she's doing a bang up job of that all on her own.. LOL

it wasn't the fall from her 16th-floor penthouse that killed her, it was the stop

reply

[–] LocoHero 11 years ago

anticaria - you really should stop saying LOL over and over. It makes you sound like a moron.

reply

[–] MsEmmaFrost 12 years ago

Why two posts?

LOL oh please.. are you even able to take one deep breath without spewing a tired and misguided apology of some sort or another in defense of the english, emma? LOL breathing and clearing your thoughts from time to time can do your perspective a world of good.. you should try it sometime.. ;-)

Yes, I am able to breathe quite well. As much as a smoker can, anyway. Thank you for your concern.

Considering my work consists in analysing history and understanding it, I am well trained to avoid embarking in defences of things that do not need it. I'd rather save my efforts to present time issues.

yi: i was speaking of the legacy of rapaciousness and cultural barrenness the british bequeathed their former colonies around the world, not just in north america..

The United States, Canada and Australia are the prime examples of English colonialism. Imperialism is, as I said, a different issue.

I fail to see how can you see any cultural bareness considering the impact that the United States had in the diffusion of democracy (based on Locke, wonderful man he was, as well as in the French theories) in the American continent. When we gained our independence from Spain we learnt a great deal from the English, French and US American political principals, something we are grateful for.

Rapaciousness? You do realise that the colonies traded with England and were not exploited under a feudal system, right? The colonies were mostly private enterprises, after all.

their complete disregard as far as investing in the cultural institutions and intruments of humanization in their conquered territories

Because English colonialism is based on trade, like Portuguese colonialism (though not based on slavery).

and the resulting and shameful lack of any unesco world heritage sites as compared to the massive number of such colonial sites to be found in the former spanish territories throughout the hispanic world

The English (Protestant and Puritan) style is less monumental than the Contrarreformation Baroque style, just like English philosophy is closer to Empirism (and even Idealism) than Realism. Different architectonic styles, that's all.

Also, as I have said before, the English didn't need to wipe out any metropolis (Cuzco, Technotitlán) like the Spanish did. And religious conversion to Protestantism is devoid of the theatricality of Catholicism.

showing what a culturally barren embarrassment british colonialism proved to be

As I said before, anyone would be hard pressed to see any "embarrassment" in the United States, Canada and Australia.

and what ruthless 'takers' the british were

The 16th and 17th century were notoriously ruthless. The English weren't more "takers" than anybody else who had the means to be so.

for it shows that spain and portugal treated their overseas territories as if they were extensions of the iberian kingdoms themselves, which is what they were, thus investing a massive amount of imperial resources to building the necessary imperial infrastructure around the globe, a mind-boggling labor of humanization which bequeathed the modern world architectural and engineering marvels as well as religious and university foundations which were the first of their kind anywhere and without peer in the colonial world..

Portugal only funded some factorías in the Brazilian coast and mercilessly exploited its resources while using slave labour.

Spain wiped out major, well organised civilisation and imposed its own on the conquered population.

Your idea of "humanising" is contradictory with the facts. The natives were already human and part of successful, flourishing societies.

but oh no, to hear you tell it, the spaniards were mere 'robbers' who just 'took gold and silver' and gave nothing back.. as if! LOL

They robbed the resources and gave back a new culture. As colonialists are wont to do.

as i said, england, its former empire and its 'apologists' have no moral ground whatsoever on which to stand hurling stones at the spanish empire..

And I said I have the right to say whatever I want about anything. And no one can hurl any stone to the Spanish Empire because it doesn't exist any more and hasn't existed for two centuries.

and yet, the english apologists merely avail themselves of the same old black legend nonsense of yore that's been used to demonize the reputation of imperial spain around the world as the mere work of the devil's spawns

Where are these mysterious English apologists? I have seen none. And where, pray tell, has anyone brought up any argument from the Black Legend?

just because the brits were covetous of the enormous wealth and breath of spain's global empire

Proof?

which is of course why the brits had to mount a full-on propaganda campaign to discredit the spaniards and depict them as 'demons,'

What British propaganda? The British people are quite fond of Spain. There hasn't been any animosity in centuries. And once again, I'm neither British nor English.

i.e., just so they could rationalize, justify and absolve themselves of their terrorist role in aiding spain's rebelious enemies in in their terrorit activities around the world at every turn.. <yawn>

You really need to check what "terrorism" means.

Spain rebellious enemies? You mean the Netherlands? Well, they have every right to rebel against a foreign power controlling their government and forcing Catholicism on them. The gueux de la mer were quite inspiring.

meanwhile, 500 years have passed.. is it not time to give the silly apologetic 'elizabethan fairy tale' a rest and stop perpetuating tired and dated elizabethan propaganda? i think perhaps the time has come, don't you? ;-)

Once again, what propaganda? You are the only one worrying about the honour of the Spanish Empire 200 years after its end and 500 years after the start of its decline.

The British have every right to feel proud of Elizabethan era, a resplendent time for their nation (like Victorian era) and I see no reason for them to avoid visiting it, especially as it had such an impact in European history

the amusing thing is that, while the loss of their beloved empire has made the brits a lot more self-aware in recent times, they still seem oddly unable to let go of these silly propanganda-driven gems of demonization, historical inaccuracy and anachronism on film.. go figure.. i guess old habits do die hard even in this day and age.. <sigh>

I don't think many people miss the Empire and they are terribly aware of the crimes of Imperialism. The uneasiness many English people feel about their own nation and any form of nationalism is proof of that.

This film was not propaganda as no one, except you, thinks there's any relevance on discussing these matters. Spain declined, England raised, England declined, the United States raised... history happened.

And I don't think anyone would deny this film is inaccurate. I am personally annoyed by the fact the mixed Exeter and Deveraux and didn't use the Tilbury Speech. But I don't watch films for historical accuracy (though it's always welcome) but documentaries.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Everyone is replaceable. Even you.

reply

[–] anticaria 12 years ago

""""""""""Portugal only funded some factorías in the Brazilian coast and mercilessly exploited its resources while using slave labour.

Spain wiped out major, well organised civilisation and imposed its own on the conquered population.

Your idea of "humanising" is contradictory with the facts. The natives were already human and part of successful, flourishing societies.""""""""

LOL first of all, brazil has some of the most beautiful, artistically rich and monumental colonial cities in both coastal and inland south america: rio, salvador, olinda, ouro preto, congonhas, sao joao del rei, etc.......... a simple fact which totally refutes your clueless assertion that the portuguese only founded 'some factories'.. a pitifully sad attempt on your part.. i mean, if you're just gonna pull silly nonsense out of your arse, at least try to exercise a bit of finesse, will ya?

secondly, spain didn't 'wipe' anything 'out'.. if it had, there would be no mesoamerican or south american ruins or monuments or records or priceless ancient codices or folk practices still in use or native languages still spoken or native ethnicities to be found still thriving throughout latin america, suggesting that your use of 'wiped out' is nothing more that the same old tired, desperate and absurd 'black legend' lingo.. will you stop repeating that nonsense already? it only makes your argument look desperate and defeated even before you've finished making a point.. just food for thought..

finally, i seriously doubt that the european humaist ideals brought over by the spaniards would ever be compatible with the violent, sacrificial, warlike and slavery-based mesoamerican cultures, well organized though they were to a degree.. the spaniard merely introduced christianity and the ideals of humanism..

i believe you really should remove your rosy modern glasses and stop trying to 'judge' events that occurred 500 years ago by today's infinitely different standards, for in so doing you only display your own lack of historical depth/insight..

the colonial hispanic world constitutes one of the greatest artistic, cultural and humanistic achievements of western society, which is why latin america and the rest of spain's former colonies around the world have such an amazing wealth of unesco world heritage sites, while the former english possessions around the globe constitute sad colonial wastelands, culturally speaking, by comparison..

such a monumental feat of colonial empire-building in both art, architecture and engineering throughout the hispanic/portuguese world could hardly have been the work of mere 'robbers'.. <wink>

it wasn't the fall from her 16th-floor penthouse that killed her, it was the stop

reply

[–] MsEmmaFrost 12 years ago

LOL first of all, brazil has some of the most beautiful, artistically rich and monumental colonial cities in both coastal and inland south america: rio, salvador, olinda, ouro preto, congonhas, sao joao del rei, etc.......... a simple fact which totally refutes your clueless assertion that the portuguese only founded 'some factories'.. a pitifully sad attempt on your part.. i mean, if you're just gonna pull silly nonsense out of your arse, at least try to exercise a bit of finesse, will ya?

I know Brazil pretty well, I often go on vacations there. The first phase of colonisation was coastal factorías and exploration only expanded towards the Amazons as they found new resources. I'd recommend Leslie Bethel's tome on Brazilian History.

secondly, spain didn't 'wipe' anything 'out'.. if it had, there would be no mesoamerican or south american ruins or monuments or records or priceless ancient codices or folk practices still in use or native languages still spoken or native ethnicities to be found still thriving throughout latin america, suggesting that your use of 'wiped out' is nothing more that the same old tired, desperate and absurd 'black legend' lingo.. will you stop repeating that nonsense already? it only makes your argument look desperate and defeated even before you've finished making a point.. just food for thought..

They wiped them out. That's why they built churches on top of temples, sacked cities and destroyed archives. That's why we barely have some of the Aztec codices and only a handful of Inca quipus.

Only some of the groups are still alive and they are certainly not thriving. In fact, they are reduced to poverty, their numbers lessened by millions and their political and civil rights systematically ignored.

finally, i seriously doubt that the european humaist ideals brought over by the spaniards would ever be compatible with the violent, sacrificial, warlike and slavery-based mesoamerican cultures, well organized though they were to a degree.. the spaniard merely introduced christianity and the ideals of humanism..

They were well organised, in ways that Europe hadn't seen yet. No, Spanish and Catholic culture weren't compatible with the indigenous one. So what? That doesn't excuse murdering and oppressing millions.

Catholicism is not a better religion, in my opinion. Just another way of societal control. And Humanism reached only a few: the people who worked in slave-like conditions in Potosí certainly didn't benefit from it.

i believe you really should remove your rosy modern glasses and stop trying to 'judge' events that occurred 500 years ago by today's infinitely different standards, for in so doing you only display your own lack of historical depth/insight..

Ah, but you see, I have always stated that the 16th and 17th rulers were all equally appalling to today's standards. You are the one who is trying to pass Spain as better than anybody else.

the colonial hispanic world constitutes one of the greatest artistic, cultural and humanistic achievements of western society, which is why latin america and the rest of spain's former colonies around the world have such an amazing wealth of unesco world heritage sites, while the former english possessions around the globe constitute sad colonial wastelands, culturally speaking, by comparison..

Sure, it's a pretty heritage. Based on brutal conquest. Again, the aesthetic difference come from different cultural backgrounds: Protestantism and Catholicism have different approaches, obviously.

Many cities in South America are beautiful, no denying in that. Mine is called the "Paris of South America" for a reason.

Well, if you don't consider democracy a cultural achievement...

such a monumental feat of colonial empire-building in both art, architecture and engineering throughout the hispanic/portuguese world could hardly have been the work of mere 'robbers'.. <wink>

It was. The Spanish robbed the native civilisations of their own monumental culture and imposed a new one. Like colonialism usually does. Because, in the end, all colonialism is the implantation of a new culture, with varying degrees of violence.

One question, though: does this tactic of repeating exactly the same, no matter what the person in front of you says actually works in the real world?

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Everyone is replaceable. Even you.

reply

[–] anticaria 12 years ago

dear, emma.. you're already backpedaling and grasping at straws but that's ok.. that's about all you have left at this point unfortunately.. regarding brazil, you clearly stated that the 'ONLY' thing 'portugal' did was 'fund some factories,' a grotesque lie.. again, stop pulling silly nonsense out of your arse in desperate hopes that no one will call you out on it.. and, while you're at it, also try to stay away from 'tomes' that perpetuate propaganda nonsense.. it will help educate you and broaden your horizons beyond the usual slop of black legend nonsense and exaggerations you appear to have been fed..

regarding the spanish conquest, the spanish didn't 'rob' the native cultures of anything.. they merely imposed humanistic, civilizing ideals on the extremely violent, warlike and slavery-based mesoamerican cultures.. as i stated earlier, if spain had truly 'wiped out' native cultures in the americas, there would be no native ethnicities left still thriving; there would be no native languages left still being spoken as there still are; there would be no native monuments left, not the massive numbers of archeological sites that currently remain throughout meso and south america; there would be no surviving precolumbian codices left to be studied; there would be no codified, encyclopedic compendia of translated terminology from nahuatl or quechua into spanish as there are at present; there would be no native practices still being practiced, and on and on and on.. you see? when you speak in terms of ludicrous absolutes, such as 'wiping out,' you only rob yourself of any credibility for the simple reason that the factual record does not support your wild claims.. incidentally, a better example that might approximate an infinitely closer rendition of 'wiping out' would be the sad fate of the aboriginal cultures in the u.s., australia or canada, where native ethnicities are but a minute fraction of the total population, unlike latin america, where native ethnicities, through the complexity of 'mestizaje,' survive in the overwhelming majority of the population as well as in full-blown genetic purity..

regarding the brutality of conquest.. what exactly did you expect, dear? conquest and war are not pretty endeavors.. what the spanish accomplished while being so impossibly outnumbered was nothing short of titanic and such monumental feats of conquest as they achieved had to be brutally decisive 'by necessity' for the simple fact that anything short of that would have spelled complete doom and failure.. as i stated earlier, you cannot judge events from 500 years ago using modern standards of sensibility or morality for such would be absurd.. we must judge events in the full context of their own times..

history is not all black or white.. so stop dealing in apologetic absolutes for you will only continue to miss the complex nuances of what actually took place and you'll inevitably only end up missing the point entirely.. i.e., dismissing the monumental pioneering contributions of the spanish empire and its columbian exchange of colonization and the impact they have had on humanity by simply dismissing such a herculean feat as the work of evil 'robbers' is frighteningly myopic, misinformed and absurd of you.. history is infinitely more complex and nuanced than the mere black vs. white war of absolutes you seem to be trying so hard to reduce it to..

by the way, here's a little factoid that is sure to blow your narrow mind:

do you know who the father of modern ethnography/anthropology is?

father bernardino de sahagun, a 16th-century spanish franciscan whose tireless work in codifying and preserving ethnographic records regarding the native beliefs, cultures and history of precolumbian mexico earned him that title..

yet, in your eyes, he'd be just another evil spaniard robbing the native cultures, right? LOL

it wasn't the fall from her 16th-floor penthouse that killed her, it was the stop

reply

[–] MsEmmaFrost 12 years ago

dear, emma.. you're already backpedaling and grasping at straws but that's ok.. that's about all you have left at this point unfortunately.. regarding brazil, you clearly stated that the 'ONLY' thing 'portugal' did was 'fund some factories,' a grotesque lie..

The Portuguese lack of interest in the Brazilian colonies is well documented. They settled factorías, not factories. They were exploiting natural resources, not making industrial products.

again, stop pulling silly nonsense out of your arse in desperate hopes that no one will call you out on it..

I'm not doing anything of sorts. And the only person who attacked me for correcting mistakes regarding witch-hunting and the Act of Uniformity is you, who seem to have an extravagant hatred towards Elizabethan England.

and, while you're at it, also try to stay away from 'tomes' that perpetuate propaganda nonsense.. it will help educate you and broaden your horizons beyond the usual slop of black legend nonsense and exaggerations you appear to have been fed..

Not propaganda. Actual historical research. Google it yourself.

I have read both Juderías and Carbia's works on the Black Legend. They make good arguments, especially regarding the context and the role the Netherlands played in it. They also downplayed the crimes committed in the Americas.

regarding the spanish conquest, the spanish didn't 'rob' the native cultures of anything.. they merely imposed humanistic, civilizing ideals on the extremely violent, warlike and slavery-based mesoamerican cultures..

Spain (and Europe) was violent, warlike and used slavery. I don't see the difference. The native cultures were civilised, they didn't need an invasion. They actually robbed them: resources, of course, but also language, religion and political organisation. Not to mention the deaths of millions.

as i stated earlier, if spain had truly 'wiped out' native cultures in the americas, there would be no native ethnicities left still thriving; there would be no native languages left still being spoken as there still are; there would be no native monuments left, not the massive numbers of archeological sites that currently remain throughout meso and south america; there would be no surviving precolumbian codices left to be studied; there would be no codified, encyclopedic compendia of translated terminology from nahuatl or quechua into spanish as there are at present; there would be no native practices still being practiced, and on and on and on..

What survives is barely a drop of the cultural ocean they had. There are just a few codices and quipus still existing and quipus can't even be read because the Spanish killed the people who were able to do so.

There are ruins, there are vestiges of what were once great civilisations.

Native ethnicities are not thriving. They are poor and discriminated against. Check Bolivia or what happens to the Tobas if you must.

incidentally, a better example that might approximate an infinitely closer rendition of 'wiping out' would be the sad fate of the aboriginal cultures in the u.s., australia or canada, where native ethnicities are but a minute fraction of the total population,

Just like in South America.

unlike latin america, where native ethnicities, through the complexity of mestizaje, survive in the overwhelming majority of the population as well as in full-blown genetic purity..

That's not true. Both Argentina, Uruguay and Chile are mostly white, European nations. Most of the native people from Bolivia, Peru and Paraguay live in poverty and only recently gained a voice against the white majority that ruled their countries. In México, there's a continued discrimination against native people.

regarding the brutality of conquest.. what exactly did you expect, dear? conquest and war are not pretty endeavors.. what the spanish accomplished while being so impossibly outnumbered was nothing short of titanic and such monumental feats of conquest as they achieved had to be brutally decisive 'by necessity' for the simple fact that anything short of that would have spelled complete doom and failure.. as i stated earlier, you cannot judge events from 500 years ago using modern standards of sensibility or morality for such would be absurd.. we must judge events in the full context of their own times..

Of course. All colonialism is brutal. The Spanish one, too.

history is not all black or white..

Yet you are the once who is screaming bloody murder about "British propaganda" obscuring the wondefrful "humanising" actions of Spain in the Americas.

so stop dealing in apologetic absolutes

I have never shown any apologetic behaviour here, unlike you.

for you will only continue to miss the complex nuances of what actually took place and you'll inevitably only end up missing the point entirely

You are the one who deals in absolutes. I have been insisting that colonialism is brutal, no matter who does it and that the 16th and 17th centuries were ruthless. You seem to believe that piracy is some sort of eternal crime without acknowledging the context of the 16th century.

dismissing the monumental pioneering contributions of the spanish empire and its columbian exchange of colonization and the impact they have had on humanity by simply dismissing such a herculean feat as the work of evil 'robbers' is frighteningly myopic and absurd of you..

No doubts on the impact of the Spanish conquest and no doubts on the impact of the Age of Discovery. The Spanish colonists did, in fact, robbed the Americas of its resources, though.

What you are saying amounts to "they had to be brutal because they wanted to expand their culture" which is exactly the same as "privateers had to attack Spanish ships because they wanted to better their nation's political place".

It is exactly the same. You refuse to see it because you somehow think that fighting the anti-Spanish prejudice the Anglo-Saxon and Protestant world showed 500 years ago is a pressing matter when, in reality, no one cares.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Everyone is replaceable. Even you.

reply

[–] anticaria 12 years ago

""""""""The Portuguese lack of interest in the Brazilian colonies is well documented. They settled factorías, not factories. They were exploiting natural resources, not making industrial products."""""""""""

stop backpedaling, dear.. you've already contradicted yourself.. you stated they 'ONLY' thing they did was built these processing factories/trading posts, as if that had been the sum total of the entire portuguese colonization effort in brazil.. LOL you seem to have a real issue grasping the issue of 'historical context' since you seem mostly interested in dealing in absolute-type terms like 'ONLY' and 'WIPED OUT' and totally dismissing everything else that does not support your narrow agenda.. <yawn>

by the way, the portuguese term was 'feitorias,' so stop interjecting spanish terminology where it does not belong.. again, context, emma, context..

by the way, when did i ever say colonialism was NOT brutal, dear? again, stop grasping at straws and erecting silly 'straw man' arguments out of sheer desperation.. <yawn>

you see? you've contradicted yourself so much and you've backpedaled so often in this exchange with your 'black vs. white' obsession, that it's futile to have a logical conversation.. your little one-liners are more suited to a stand-up comedy routine as they invariably prove nothing and totally miss the issue of 'historical context' altogether..

listen, i get it.. you're an elizabethan era apologist who's merely interested in pointing fingers elsewhere and in perpetuating 500-year-old 'black legend' nonsense (just like this silly movie does) of 'the great spanish evil perpetrated against all those sweet, peaceful little european kingdoms and aboriginal cultures of the world which stood in their way blah blah blah'.. simply because you can't deal with the fact that england was actually a cutthroat little realm on the fringes of europe which relied on piracy and terrorism as its sole means of survival at a time when spain ruled the world, and because you obviously fail to realize that the aboriginal cultures of the americas were far from the 'sweet, innocent, helpless and peaceful little children at a disadvantage' that the 'black legend' paints them to be.. when, in fact, the spanish were horribly outnumbered by ruthlessly warlike and violent natives.. hence, since you can't dispute that, you're forced to keep repeating the same old tired propaganda nonsense from 500 years ago vis a vis the spaniards as 'the great spawns of satan blah blah blah'.. sheer desperation on your part.. <yawn>..

i repeat, history is not an easily cut-and-dried, 'black vs. white' discourse.. your narrow view lacks nuance and insight.. please educate yourself..

meanwhile, the enormous cultural patrimony of the colonial hispanic and pre-hispanic world speaks for itself in the sheer number of unesco world heritage sites to be found in it around the world, compared to the largely culturally and architecturally barren former colonial possessions of the british empire, owing largely to the civilizing, humanizing and conquering might of philip II's spain at a time when england was but a mere impoverished, piratical kingdom on the fringes of habsburg-controlled europe forced to beg for and steal the crumbs of spain's enormous imperial wealth just so its 'heavenly' queen could preside over a so-called golden age, something you seem totally unable to refute..

it wasn't the fall from her 16th-floor penthouse that killed her, it was the stop

reply

[–] MsEmmaFrost 12 years ago

This is my last response to you as I honestly don't see the point in re-hashing the same points we went trough before. You keep saying the same thing over and over but mere repetition doesn't make paranoid rambling true.

Furthermore, I was talking with some friends and they told me you must be a troll. I doubted it at first, because paranoid defence of Spanish colonialism is not a topic that trolls pick (they go for sexism, homophobia and racism - though you have several racist moments here) but they insisted and your last post on this board regarding a ship sunk in the context of Napoleonic aggressions made me realise that you are, in fact, a troll. I checked your profile and I notice that you used this "British propaganda" nonsense in other film-boards and used the same arguments and tactics again and again. You also troll the Bette Davis board, posting threads that you only reply insulting the woman and making fun of her cancer. This puts you beyond the "weird person with an agenda" line and into "despicable being" territory.

So, I am done with you. I've blocked your posts. Continue to ramble into the void.

Godspeed.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Everyone is replaceable. Even you.

reply

[–] anticaria 12 years ago

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! oh poor emma, you're such a spineless little quitter.. LOL

the minute your tired nonsense gets refuted, you run crying to mommie.. LOL

it wasn't the fall from her 16th-floor penthouse that killed her, it was the stop

reply

[–] baran_erik 8 years ago

I'm sure the people living in the pre-Columbian Americas would differ with your assertion that the Spanish "gave the Americas every bit as much as they profited from it". They gave them small pox and other diseases, they made them slaves, they killed and tortured those that didn't want to convert and they stole everything they could get their hands on.

I find it funny that you two are arguing over which country of thieves, killers, rapists and marauders was the most magnanimous.

reply

[–] shurbanm 12 years ago

Really historically speaking the king of Spain was in his right to wage war. Elizabeth openly encouraged pirates notably Francis Drake. In fact the revenue from pirated loot from spanish galeons was during those years the greatest part of England's gdp.

reply

[–] enriquegoni 14 years ago

Are you saying that Phillip II had black hair because you've seen him like that in films?? Phillip II had blond hair. Based on all descriptions and portraits of the time. The film was made in England, not in the US. It is obvious that an English film cannot be neutral about English history. About the hair, they could have hire a blond actor or tinted the hair of the one they hired.

reply

[–] lightbite_4 14 years ago

It was a decisive English victory, the Spanish were decivesly defeated, the Spanish nation started to crumble very soon after the defeat. Everyone know's this. Also the film may have been filmed in the United Kingdom, but it was largely financed by Universal, an American film studio.

reply

[–] anticaria 14 years ago

"""It was a decisive English victory, the Spanish were decivesly defeated, the Spanish nation started to crumble very soon after the defeat. Everyone know's this. Also the film may have been filmed in the United Kingdom, but it was largely financed by Universal, an American film studio."""

weather patterns may have handed england a victory here but the larger war was not won by england as the ensuing conflicts which followed were won by spain and the terms of peace were far more favorable to spain..

the english usually trump up the defeat of philip II's english campaign to cast elizabethan england as some sort of 'chosen' nation.. but the reality is that england was not yet powerful enough at sea to be able to translate this one isolated victory into their ownership of the oceans.. thus any suggestion that a fringe nation, as england was at the time, would've alone brought down the greatest and most powerful empire of its age, is entirely 'wishful'..

reply

[–] enriquegoni 14 years ago

You are wrong, this battle was not decisive at all. The English were destroyed soon afterwards by the Spanish in the counter-armada giving Spain the naval supremacy until 18 century.

reply

[–] adeherrpal 14 years ago

The spanish supremacy at sea ended with the battle of the Dunes 1639 against the Dutch. During the XVIII century was the third naval power after English and French.

reply

[–] matthewpr06 14 years ago

Given that this is a piece of art and entertainment, that doesn't claim to be historically accurate, I think your asseration is dumb.

This is a British film, where a foreign enemy is invading England. You want the enemy to be portrayed as all warm and fuzzy and its leader to be an utterly nice bloke - how would that actually work in the context of the film?

reply

[–] enriquegoni 14 years ago

Lol, I think you are very dumb. Firstly, you are then confirming that the film is a piece of English propaganda. Maybe a biased film can work in the English market but it surely didn't work worldwide. The film was not a commercial success, earning only enough to cover the cost, while the preceeding film, "Elizabeth", was a great success. Maybe English people enjoy being lied about their history, but the rest of the world doesn't like the nationalistic propaganda of other countries.

reply

[–] anticaria 13 years ago

<<<<This is a British film, where a foreign enemy is invading England. You want the enemy to be portrayed as all warm and fuzzy and its leader to be an utterly nice bloke - how would that actually work in the context of the film?>>>>>

oh geez.. stop with the EXCUSES.. what difference does it make which nation produced or made the film? is such a silly 'nationalistic' implication even relevant these days? BTW.. NO ONE is suggesting the spaniards should've been portrayed as 'warm and fuzzy' creatures, so stop erecting silly straw man arguments.. again, this is the 21st century.. do we really need yet another biased, ridiculously slanted retelling of this conflict? why? haven't we all become a wee bit more intelligent and introspective in the last 500 years? why do brits still feel the need to peddle tired old black legend PROPAGANDA nearly 500 years after the fact?

wouldn't it have been infinitely more interesting and thought-provoking to shed fresh insights into what actually made the spaniard's tick and what psychological/temperamental/spiritual/cultural dynamics motivated their actions on a more 'human' level, instead of merely portraying them as devilishly cartoonish cardboard cutouts?? they would've still had one heck of a poignant and tensely antagonistic english-spanish dichotomy to keep the audiences on the edge of their seats.. cinema will never evolve if filmmakers continue to dumb down/underestimate their audiences with oversimplified black/white, saint/evil, night/day historical musings of ridiculous fakery.. that's why i'm not buying the silly 'excuse' that propagandist bias was somehow needed to make the movie work.. as if! lol

truly, what is the need of yet another totally biased propagandist rehash of the armada? what does such a tired approach add to the discourse of such a historical event, other than perpetuating the same old tired black legend misconceptions and biases of the last 500 years.. enough with this faux or pseudo-intellectual approach to history already.. sheesh! <yawn>

this film adds NOTHING whatsoever new or fresh to the cinematic bibliography on the subject.. as it is, we already have one too many biased and trite retellings of the same old cookie cutter demonization of the spaniard that this film merely perpetuates.. do we really need yet another cartoon demonization? really? sheesh.. enough!

until we demand more intelligent cinema, we will continue to be fed these absurdly overcooked 'turkeys' i'm afraid.. sad but true..

earth to filmmakers: this is the 'digital age' and modern audiences are a wee bit more intelligent and 'informed' than you give them credit for.. so STOP trying to dumb audiences down with historical hubris!

reply

[–] tzogas 12 years ago

matthewpr06 said:

1. "Given that this is a piece of art and entertainment, that doesn't claim to be historically accurate, I think your asseration is dumb."

On the contrary, this film does assert itself as authoritative at the very least, and I have seen definitive proof that there ARE people out there who accept its depictions as truth, and through it to find cause to admire Elizabeth I - without digging further to learn some historical facts.

This is the function of propaganda - and for me, it's not enough to satisfy my need to discover truth - unpleasant as it may be, as I did enjoy the movie and wanted to believe in the glittering portrait Elizabeth herself first created...and then hid behind.

2. "This is a British film, where a foreign enemy is invading England. You want the enemy to be portrayed as all warm and fuzzy and its leader to be an utterly nice bloke - how would that actually work in the context of the film?"

I get what you're saying here, matthewpr06. Movies "need" to have a clear-cut hero and bad-guy. The truth is something infinitely more complicated and can be better pursued through historical inquiry. The issue I take with it occurs when I encounter people in real-life who have swallowed the fairy tale and are further spreading misinformation....that came, after all....from propaganda.

reply

[–] Holkospinner 14 years ago

I agree with the OT on the portrait of Philip being ridiculous. Wasn't he even of German/Austrian and French decent? Anyway, it is pretty clear that he had blond hair, blue eyes and soft features and was described as a quiet, thoughtful and intellectual man who didn't make thinks easy for himself.

I wouldn't call it propaganda because it's not directly of political meaning nowadays but I am often surprise about the noncharlance and carelessness of how England is depicted in movies, both English and American, as a sort of "can't do no wrong" nation/characters while the rest of Europe is basically evil and one big fat cliché. The French are arrogant and cruel, Spanish power hungry and inquisitors, Germans are savages, blablabla..

As for Catholic and Protestants or religion in general? It all sucks and is similar evil.

reply

[–] bloefeld2001 13 years ago

I found find funny theese arguments about why the spanish people are phisically portraied as muslims:
"It was an american film and it´s easier to find mexican actor for Spain".
But when it´s clear that it´s an english movie shot on England they said:
"But with economical support of Universal".
That makes mexican people more avalaible and nearer to England than spanish one?.
That makes impossible spanish portraied by a more european looking actors?.
That makes impossible to buy blond or brown dye stuff?.

reply

[–] LoveVigilantes 13 years ago

I'm not trying to defend the film but I just want to point out that Philip II was portrayed as dark haired, dark eyed because that's the stereotype. In films, most Spaniards are depicted as dark haired and dark eyed. In real life, you see more Spanish people with that description too. Therefore, having a blond haired, blue eyed Spanish king would confuse viewers who don't know a lot about the specifics of the time period. How are they supposed to know that he isn't "pure" Spanish? To them, all they see is an English/Dutch/etc. looking man. They won't know immediately he's Spanish from that. Therefore, starts confusion. There's a reason why a lot of films like this cast distinctively English actors, etc. Same situation as Mary, Queen of Scots and the Scottish accent. In real life, she didn't have a Scottish accent as she was brought up in France, but lot's of people would be confused about why some French lady is a Scottish queen.

Is it right? Undoubtedly, no. It usually means creating misconceptions. But the movie has to stand on its own to people who don't know anything about the context. Therefore, they have to make it understandable for them too. With that in mind, how are they supposed to explain the French Scottish queen, the English-looking King and many other things that I haven't mentioned, and still cram in a plot?

Yes, it's annoying. But is it really the end of the world that a king has the wrong hair colour in a film? Especially as the man in question isn't recognisable, except to history buffs.

reply

[–] bloefeld2001 13 years ago

In "The Fountain" Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz were spaniard and there were not confussion.
Don´t depicting spaniards as blond or blue eyes people does not make neccesary portraying them by people who looks like they are from Irak, Iran or Afghannistan, or maybe it´s necessary because your intention is to send a message: both belong to the same mold, cause both are religious people on a fanatical way.

reply

[–] anticaria 12 years ago

"""""""""""I'm not trying to defend the film but I just want to point out that Philip II was portrayed as dark haired, dark eyed because that's the stereotype.""""""""""""

yeah, and as we all know, silly stereotypes provide such a wonderful foundation for historical accuracy.. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

face it.. pandering to pathetic stereotypes is all kapur did in this movie, by which he was basically saying to his audience: folks, we all know what a bunch of ignorant twits you all are, so we hope you enjoy this 'dumbed down' version of events.. cheers! <--that's exactly how much disdain and contempt kapur had for the i.q. level of those he hoped would go see his film.. and judging from the downright insane attempts at defending this film, i am sad to say kapur was indeed right about his target audience (an english audience hungry for silly stereotypes and bullsh!te).. ;-)

this movie was no doubt expected to do great business in britain.. unfortunately for kapur, international audiences are obviously a lot more historically savvy and insightful than the typical british public is, which means they weren't about to 'swallow' this overcooked 'turkey' with the same gleeful hunger an english audience would and in fact did.. a sad commentary on the state of public education in britain i suppose.. heck, if i were english, i would feel downright insulted at the blatant way kapur tried to 'talk down' to his target audience in this film..

it wasn't the fall from her 16th-floor penthouse that killed her, it was the stop

reply

[–] bilko1 13 years ago

Shut up!!!!!!!!

"Dead girls don't say "No" But they stink the place up!!

reply

[–] a-bollinger 13 years ago

The Elizabethan Era marked the beginning of a period of wealth (agreed, often stolen from Spanish ships.....) and (relative) peace on an island formerly too often torn and tortured by religious wars, wars of succession etc.
So it's understandable that historians and filmmakers tend to present Elizabeth in a shining light. (Quite literally, in the case of this film.)

BOTH Philip AND Elizabeth were ambitious, power-hungry, sometimes ruthless rulers.
Standard in those times.

The OP is absolutely right in one thing: Philip was blond and blue-eyed; he belonged to the Austrian House of Habsburg (in fact, in Spanish the dynasty of the Emperor Charles and his son Philip is called "los Austrias").
I always thought what a Spanish actor must feel playing such a whining Philip, looking misty-eyed and full of guilt at his haughty small daughter (quite a ridiculous scene). Then I realised that "Jordi Molla" is a Catalonian name - the Catalonians always loathed the centralised government in Madrid, they do so to the present day, so probably no problem for a Catalan to play Philip like this (lol)!

And one thing is certain: The Spanish Inquisition is viewed (outside Spain) as one of the worst "institutions" in the history of mankind - Elizabeth was no saint and probably didn't like people to disagree too strongly with her views, but something as infamous as the "Holy Inquisition" was never set up in England.

So just relax - it's a piece of entertainment, and no movie "based" on history has ever been totally accurate.

reply

[–] enriquegoni 13 years ago

Yes, the film shows what British have learn in the school. But the film fakes to be accurate, for example the spanish speak in old spanish and are dubbed.
I think that, when making films about the history of 2 countries, they should be accurate, or if not, make it clear that they are just a piece of entertainment. I think that if someone made a film about a great British defeat, like the ones in Cartagena, Isandhlwana, Lisbon, Castlebar, etc, the British would say the makers of such films are terrorists.

reply

[–] nimmy1 13 years ago

Hey, Manuel, history is written by the victors, wind your neck in.

Only those with no valid argument pick holes in people's spelling and grammar.

reply

[–] szisoman 12 years ago

what propaganda? are you so bitter still or what? grow up.

" I am talking about..ethics "

reply

[–] SuperhumanChichi 12 years ago

I also noticed the obvious bias against the Spanish. In the movie, the Spanish wore all black and were brunettes, while the English tended to be fair haired and wear brighter clothes. I am well aware that (based on historical texts etc) the Spanish favored black garments. Regardless, I thought it was blatantly obvious that the director tried to visually make the Spanish appear to be "bad" and the English as "good" - quite literally black and white. The script was also shameful and totally unbalanced. Michael Hirst did such a brilliant (and fair) job as writer on The Tudors. I don't know what on earth he was thinking when he worked on the script to this abominable movie.

reply