1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Marysya12 [62]
3 years ago
9

Did the Spanish Help or Hurt?

History
1 answer:
lukranit [14]3 years ago
4 0

The correct answer to this open question is the following.

Although there are no options attached we can say the following.

Did the Spanish Help or Hurt?

Well, it all depends on the perspective.

From the European perspective, the Spanish helped by evangelizing the Native Indians into the Catholic church principles and in offering education because the Spaniards considered the Indians as ignorant, primitive people.

On the other hand, in the Mexican and Latin American perspectives, the Spanish hurt so much.

The Spaniards were fortunate in the act that the Aztecas believed they were their gods coming back to fulfill the prophecies, and because of that the Aztecs welcomed them with an open hand and open doors.

The Spaniards were greedy people that only ambitioned richness for them and the Spanish crown, and they did what they knew best, kill and conquer.

The Spanish conquered Mesoamerica and instilled New Spain More than helping the Indians what the Spanish really wanted was to exploit the many raw materials and natural resources of the Americas. And exploit they did. They also tried to disappear the culture, traditions, beliefs, and religion of the Indians. Furthermore, they brought European diseases that almost wipe out 80n% of the Indian population. Diseases such as chickenpox, smallpox, malaria, influenza, and cholera.

So we could say they hurt more than what they helped.

You might be interested in
What did Hamilton's financial plan include?
Ksivusya [100]
Security loyalty to the federal government
6 0
3 years ago
Please Help ASAP how can you tell the difference between a primary and a secondary source
Ksju [112]
A primary source is from someone who was apart of the event that’s being sourced, such as a holocaust survivor recounting the events of the holocaust, or someone who witnessed a murder. A secondary source would be someone sharing the primary source, such as a newspaper or a book! Hope this helps!
6 0
3 years ago
In American history, the Connecticut Compromise is also known as __________.
harina [27]
The great compromise
5 0
3 years ago
Aral pan:alin sa mga sumusunod ang saklaw ng heograpiya​
alekssr [168]

Answer:

??? sorry cant help .........

8 0
3 years ago
What belief does cugoano explicitly state in this passage
tia_tia [17]

The practice of enslaving people is contrary to Christian principles

7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • What rights did women have in the early 19th century?
    7·1 answer
  • In the late 1800’s, the goal of the Federal Government’s policy toward Native American Indians was to
    11·1 answer
  • Of the following people, who was a former slave who spoke for the abolitionist cause? Dorothea Dix Nat Turner William Garrison F
    11·1 answer
  • Who spoke against british rule in colonial times
    5·2 answers
  • Which was one impact of reducing the size and cost of computers?
    12·1 answer
  • a)Explain ONE specific similarity between state systems in the Americas from 1200 to 1450. Use the maps and your reading to supp
    7·1 answer
  • How might the French and Indian War become a <br> precursor to the American Revolution?
    9·1 answer
  • Who were Ferdinand and Isabella, and how did their marriage change Spain?
    7·2 answers
  • Why did Southerns NOT like the protective tariffs? <br><br> See Picture
    12·1 answer
  • The school library decides to remove the swimsuit edition of Sports Illustrated from its shelf because of the revealing
    12·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!