Havana celebrates 500 years of foundation(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Havana celebrates 500 years of foundation
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-50322553
6 comments
In the context of the (european) New World, this is positively ancient. It's actually a bit disorienting (I'm betraying a bit of an US-centric perspective here, apologies) to think of Havana thriving for HUNDREDS of years before many American metropolises. Very cool.
I've lived a lot of my life in ex-Spanish territories which are now part of the US.
This includes visiting St. Augustine, FL as a kid (founded 1565), and living in Santa Fe[1], NM (founded 1610), which is an hour or so drive south of Taos Pueblo where you there are multi-story buildings around 600 years old.
I think these should be part of a US-centric perspective of US history, but I recognize that most people -- including myself -- learn an English/British flavored perspective of that history.
I also know what you mean. I grew up in Miami, and as a kid there were still people alive born before the city was founded.
[1] Full name: La Villa Real de la Santa Fe de San Francisco de Asís
This includes visiting St. Augustine, FL as a kid (founded 1565), and living in Santa Fe[1], NM (founded 1610), which is an hour or so drive south of Taos Pueblo where you there are multi-story buildings around 600 years old.
I think these should be part of a US-centric perspective of US history, but I recognize that most people -- including myself -- learn an English/British flavored perspective of that history.
I also know what you mean. I grew up in Miami, and as a kid there were still people alive born before the city was founded.
[1] Full name: La Villa Real de la Santa Fe de San Francisco de Asís
At one point Cuba exported 60% of the world's sugar. If not for a trade embargo with the US (its most important trade partner) for the last 70 years, Cuba would be a very different place. Who knows if many of these architectural relics would be in better shape (arguably "progress" might have meant they would have been demolished for newer buildings). They have an amazing literacy rate (99.7%, one of the highest in the world) and incredible doctors, but yet have terrible poverty and a repressive state. I always wonder whether this will be the year that the country opens up and connects with the rest of the world.
At one point Cuba exported 60% of the world's sugar.
The USSR paid 5-10x the global market price for Cuban sugar to prop up their fellow regime. But when the USSR dissolved Cuba had no one else willing to be its patron and it’s economy wasn’t designed for the real price.
There are nice buildings around Havana, gorgeous colonial mansions for the chosen few. Most people live with 3 families crammed into an apartment designed for one.
The USSR paid 5-10x the global market price for Cuban sugar to prop up their fellow regime. But when the USSR dissolved Cuba had no one else willing to be its patron and it’s economy wasn’t designed for the real price.
There are nice buildings around Havana, gorgeous colonial mansions for the chosen few. Most people live with 3 families crammed into an apartment designed for one.
There is no 'blockade' of Cuba, they are free to trade with the other 186 or so nations on planet earth, and can buy/sell most American goods via other destinations. They are a member of the WTO (!!) Since commodity markets are fungible there isn't a huge reason for sugar to be seriously devalued.
It's hard to 'blame America' for the totalitarian rule of Castro Inc. in Cuba, this subject makes me wonder deeply about the nature of perspective of populist leftists, anti-Americans etc.. Cuba is always an interesting litmus test for those who are willing to completely look the other way so long as the 'red flag' is on the pole.
The revolution made a few leaps and then failed miserably, as so many do, which is a real shame, because it's such a wonderful country otherwise. It'd be amazing to see what that country would be under some kind of normal leadership - I suggest it would be the richest in Latin America.
It's hard to 'blame America' for the totalitarian rule of Castro Inc. in Cuba, this subject makes me wonder deeply about the nature of perspective of populist leftists, anti-Americans etc.. Cuba is always an interesting litmus test for those who are willing to completely look the other way so long as the 'red flag' is on the pole.
The revolution made a few leaps and then failed miserably, as so many do, which is a real shame, because it's such a wonderful country otherwise. It'd be amazing to see what that country would be under some kind of normal leadership - I suggest it would be the richest in Latin America.
That is simply not true — see the 180 day rule that prevents any ship docking in Cuba from entering US ports for the next 180 days. It’s not like the rest of the world is just free to trade with Cuba without repercussions from the US, and given the much smaller Cuban market, it’s not surprising that many operators would rather avoid the trouble of unloading cargo there. The revolution has done pretty remarkably well given the adverse circumstances it was placed under.
It is true.
Just try to take about anything into the country which is not for personal use, and you will see it confiscated by Cuba's customs. Only a handful of entities strongly affiliated with the Cuban government can import goods for commerce in Cuba. You can check it here: https://www.nordeatrade.com/en/explore-new-market/cuba/custo... under the "Import Procedures" paragraph.
There was a whole potential trading block of nations with similar government systems that could trade with Cuba, but none of them had much to trade until they embraced some form of capitalism.
Shipping is a plentiful resource, lots of shipowners are not on good terms with the U.S. Treasury already and 6 months is not that much time. Doubt that rule has much effect: the invisible hand helps communists just as good even if they hate it.
I suggest it would be the richest in Latin America.
It would face some stiff competition - well-governed, Venezuela or Argentina could easily be. And we know this because for brief periods, they were!
It would face some stiff competition - well-governed, Venezuela or Argentina could easily be. And we know this because for brief periods, they were!
Panama City is 500 years old too this year.
Just spent a long weekend in Havana with my fiance, it's a fantastic place to visit. As an American, super surreal visit. https://wanderandponder.com/2019/11/04/a-weekend-in-cuba/
If you're into art, keep an eye on the contemporary Cuban art scene. Got to see some really impressive pieces during our visit.
If you're into art, keep an eye on the contemporary Cuban art scene. Got to see some really impressive pieces during our visit.
umm, can someone explain how significant this is?
At least 3 significant digits, since we know the exact year; but given we seem to know the exact day you could probably claim it's more like 5 significant digits (500.00 years).
Brevity is the soul of wit
These are the oldest 'Western' cities in the colonial New World. They were established just after 'contact', just as Byzantine (i.e. E. Roman Empire) finally fell to the Ottomans, at the dawn of the Reformation, before the Enlightenment ... just at the very start of the 'modern period' in Europe. To give some context, Napoleon was 100 years closer to 'our time' than he was to 'that time'. The last English king to die in battle was about this time. The French were not yet a real power. Europe's borders as we know them were just taking shape, and the 'Americas' were entirely Aboriginal.
So they are very intesting cities born at a major turning point in civilisation.
So they are very intesting cities born at a major turning point in civilisation.
> just as Byzantine (i.e. E. Roman Empire) finally fell to the Ottomans
The Fall of Constantinople was in 1453, the Empire of Trebizond fell in 1461, and the Principality of Theodoro in 1475, which marked the final end of any state claiming to have been the "true" successor to the Byzantine Empire after its defeat in 1204 in the Fourth Crusade. All of these dates markedly predates Columbus's contact voyage in 1492.
The Fall of Constantinople was in 1453, the Empire of Trebizond fell in 1461, and the Principality of Theodoro in 1475, which marked the final end of any state claiming to have been the "true" successor to the Byzantine Empire after its defeat in 1204 in the Fourth Crusade. All of these dates markedly predates Columbus's contact voyage in 1492.
They're in the same lifetime. I don't think that a few decades here or there matters to parent's point.
Byzantium still existed, it was just under Ottoman domination, and relatively speaking of course, the Ottomans were relatively more tolerant than Christians than other Muslim empires, and the heritage of Byzantium was transferred to Russia, the connections with the West were still strong. This may just come down to it depending on which history books you read.
Fun fact: The Patriarchate of Constantinople still exists today!
Fun fact: The Patriarchate of Constantinople still exists today!
I always found the idea of Moscow as the "Third Rome" quite fascinating:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Rome
[Also the derivation of Tsar from Caesar]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Rome
[Also the derivation of Tsar from Caesar]
but... since you mentioned the french, isn't french cities like paris more than thousands of years old. thanks for replying though, i was just curious why havana is suddenly singled out because it seems still a young city.
Old for a colonial city, but you're right that French cities (for example) are far older. My own city [0] is closing in on its 2000 year anniversary - should be a big celebration when it comes around in about 20 years.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyon#History_of_Lyon
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyon#History_of_Lyon
yes, Rome and Paris have 1000+ years, but Havana is one of the first "western" colonial city in the "new world".
500 years of foundation? I guess the history of the Mesoamericans who lived there prior to their genocide by the Europeans isn't available?
They didn't found a city called Havana, that's all.
You clearly missed my point. But that's okay since I presume your intentions and support of colonialization is clear.
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I recommend you to read history. There was no genocide in Cuba. Some people people die from sickness brought by Europeans and right after the discovery the Queen of Spain at the time ruled that the native couldn't be enslaved. So the ones who didn't die were simply blend into society.
Btw I'm Cuban myself.
Btw I'm Cuban myself.
> I recommend you to read history. There was no genocide in Cuba
Perhaps your history is written by Spaniards. I notice you didn't give any specific books to read. I'll do you a favour. Here's one: https://www.amazon.com/Brevisima-relacion-destruicion-Humani... The cover is "A 16th-century illustration by Flemish Protestant Theodor de Bry for Las Casas's Brevisima relación de la destrucción de las Indias, depicting Spanish atrocities during the conquest of Cuba"
Perhaps your history is written by Spaniards. I notice you didn't give any specific books to read. I'll do you a favour. Here's one: https://www.amazon.com/Brevisima-relacion-destruicion-Humani... The cover is "A 16th-century illustration by Flemish Protestant Theodor de Bry for Las Casas's Brevisima relación de la destrucción de las Indias, depicting Spanish atrocities during the conquest of Cuba"
A flemish protestant, no less, from the era of religious wars with catholics.
I'll take "what is the black legend" for 500, Alex.
I'll take "what is the black legend" for 500, Alex.
I'm sorry but you're absolutely wrong.
While some atrocities did happen there was no genocide at all. That's why the old Spanish Empire in America is full of indigenous and mixed people. In coutrines like Bolivia the indigenous population is like 80%. How's that possible with?
500 years ago the Spanish crown forbid by slavery and declared that all indigenous people had the same rights as anyone. They also encouraged mixed marriages, something that wasn't allowed in the US until the 60's if I'm not mistaken.
I could tell you also how the some Mexican tribes allied with around 600 Spaniards to overthrow the Aztec Empire because they were the slaughters. Or how Blas de Lezo defended Cartagena de Indias from the British and saved thousand of indigenous which would've died in hands of the attackers.
That's why you can find 500 year old Spanish cities and universities in America.
I won't judge actions made 500 ago by today's standards but I won't throw unfunded accusations either.
While some atrocities did happen there was no genocide at all. That's why the old Spanish Empire in America is full of indigenous and mixed people. In coutrines like Bolivia the indigenous population is like 80%. How's that possible with?
500 years ago the Spanish crown forbid by slavery and declared that all indigenous people had the same rights as anyone. They also encouraged mixed marriages, something that wasn't allowed in the US until the 60's if I'm not mistaken.
I could tell you also how the some Mexican tribes allied with around 600 Spaniards to overthrow the Aztec Empire because they were the slaughters. Or how Blas de Lezo defended Cartagena de Indias from the British and saved thousand of indigenous which would've died in hands of the attackers.
That's why you can find 500 year old Spanish cities and universities in America.
I won't judge actions made 500 ago by today's standards but I won't throw unfunded accusations either.
Las Casas's reaction to the atrocities, which the depiction shows, lead him to advocate for abolition of slavery.
That is, dm3730's comment concerns events which took place before slavery was prohibited, while your response concerns a later period of time, making it a rather inapplicable comment.
And I'll note that Spain had African slaves (not abolished in Cuba until 1886), and allowed slavery of indigenous people who rebelled against Spanish rule.
There's a debate over the genocide question. Eg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encomienda#Deaths,_disease,_an... says:
> Raphael Lemkin (coiner of the term genocide) considers Spain's abuses of the native population of the Americas to constitute cultural and even outright genocide including the abuses of the Encomienda system.
Do note also the "Skepticism toward alleged demographic declines and accusations of genocide" section on the same page.
The encomienda system allowed for forced labor, with severe punishment for not complying. But no, it wasn't, technically, slavery.
You ask "How's that possible [that the indigenous population of Bolivia is like 80%."
Where's the incompatibility? Tell me, what's the indigenous population of Cuba?
The US genocide of the indigenous Californians killed something like 90% of the indigenous population. But there's no similar genocide of the indigenous Hawaiians or Alaskans. Does the lack of a US genocide in one place mean that there was no genocide anywhere? Clearly no. So your example doesn't prove anything.
You write "all indigenous people had the same rights as anyone".
That's like saying that the US founders believed that "all men are created equal."
First off, did conversos have the same rights as non-conversos?
Second, do you believe the sistema de castas did not exist, or had negligible effect? Because, to quote from https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/60962114/Oxf...
"Yet, there were very real spiritual and social consequences tied to this system in which Indians and Africans were deemed to be of lesser spiritual ability, received a watered-down version of the faith, and were relegated to an inferior spiritual status within the religious fold. ... That culture of inferiority and suspicion around the purity of their religious belief and practice was reinforced socially and spatially throughout colonial society. Because they were perceived as constantly in need of correction, colonial controls on their bodies and souls were all the more heightened. In addition to limited access to the sacraments,Indians and Africans experienced heavy regulation of their spiritual and social activities. Indians were regularly restricted to reducciones as a means of taming their natural inclinations to better prepare them for proper Christian practice. Africans were subject to the jurisdiction of the Inquisition to regulate any unorthodox or immoral behavior. Confraternities and religious brotherhoods, arguably the most active aspect of popular religious life in the Spanish and Portuguese Americas, were often segregated by casta category or ethnic origin, with whites holding positions of power to monitor their ritual practice."
Hardly an example of "same rights", no?
That is, dm3730's comment concerns events which took place before slavery was prohibited, while your response concerns a later period of time, making it a rather inapplicable comment.
And I'll note that Spain had African slaves (not abolished in Cuba until 1886), and allowed slavery of indigenous people who rebelled against Spanish rule.
There's a debate over the genocide question. Eg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encomienda#Deaths,_disease,_an... says:
> Raphael Lemkin (coiner of the term genocide) considers Spain's abuses of the native population of the Americas to constitute cultural and even outright genocide including the abuses of the Encomienda system.
Do note also the "Skepticism toward alleged demographic declines and accusations of genocide" section on the same page.
The encomienda system allowed for forced labor, with severe punishment for not complying. But no, it wasn't, technically, slavery.
You ask "How's that possible [that the indigenous population of Bolivia is like 80%."
Where's the incompatibility? Tell me, what's the indigenous population of Cuba?
The US genocide of the indigenous Californians killed something like 90% of the indigenous population. But there's no similar genocide of the indigenous Hawaiians or Alaskans. Does the lack of a US genocide in one place mean that there was no genocide anywhere? Clearly no. So your example doesn't prove anything.
You write "all indigenous people had the same rights as anyone".
That's like saying that the US founders believed that "all men are created equal."
First off, did conversos have the same rights as non-conversos?
Second, do you believe the sistema de castas did not exist, or had negligible effect? Because, to quote from https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/60962114/Oxf...
"Yet, there were very real spiritual and social consequences tied to this system in which Indians and Africans were deemed to be of lesser spiritual ability, received a watered-down version of the faith, and were relegated to an inferior spiritual status within the religious fold. ... That culture of inferiority and suspicion around the purity of their religious belief and practice was reinforced socially and spatially throughout colonial society. Because they were perceived as constantly in need of correction, colonial controls on their bodies and souls were all the more heightened. In addition to limited access to the sacraments,Indians and Africans experienced heavy regulation of their spiritual and social activities. Indians were regularly restricted to reducciones as a means of taming their natural inclinations to better prepare them for proper Christian practice. Africans were subject to the jurisdiction of the Inquisition to regulate any unorthodox or immoral behavior. Confraternities and religious brotherhoods, arguably the most active aspect of popular religious life in the Spanish and Portuguese Americas, were often segregated by casta category or ethnic origin, with whites holding positions of power to monitor their ritual practice."
Hardly an example of "same rights", no?
Dude the history of humans is brutal. The only way societies consolidated and culture formed is through the battles and conquers of the past. We're now at a point where we have the prescience to not repeat the past. But just respect that that is how you yourself are alive on this planet. Your ancestors killed and conquered the resources of others, and that's how they propagated to get to you. It's foolish to believe otherwise.
> It's foolish to believe otherwise.
Where do they believe otherwise? They're merely mentioning that the city was populated prior to the genocide. You're defending atrocities against a specter of your own imagination.
Where do they believe otherwise? They're merely mentioning that the city was populated prior to the genocide. You're defending atrocities against a specter of your own imagination.
In their 2nd comment below you can see that they are trying to call out the colonization, etc. And also I'm not "defending against my imagination"... there's so many commenters that think history is so reprehensible and modern day people should be directly guilty for things that happened 500 years ago.
> In their 2nd comment below you can see that they are trying to call out the colonization
Why do you feel the need to defend against the horrors of colonialism?
Why do you feel the need to defend against the horrors of colonialism?
I'm not. I feel the need to show being realistic about the past instead of having an emotional response. "Omg people conquered other people, that is bad!" Very infantile view of a complex world/history, where every single group in every single nook and cranny of every continent has done this in the past.
Hm. Whom has America conquered? Puerto Rico I guess. Any others?
Putting aside questions of what it means to "buy" the Louisiana Territory and then use military force against the indigenous peoples, one obvious one is the Spanish-American War, where we got Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippine Islands.
We then had to fight the Philippine Republic for control of the country, in the Philippine-American war.
We then had to fight the Philippine Republic for control of the country, in the Philippine-American war.
> I feel the need to show being realistic about the past instead of having an emotional response.
What's wrong with an emotional response to an atrocity? Is it irrational to cry over the Holocaust because, hey, the Tsars didn't some pretty bad pogroms, too? No, emotional responses are perfectly fine and are a normal mode of thinking. Your fetishization of reason is dangerous and echoes the same rhetoric that enabled these atrocities: oh, they're not people, they're savages because X, so cut off their hands if they don't bring enough silver. The correct response here is to denounce colonialism, not to say, "oh, hey, it's not that bad because other people have done bad things."
What's wrong with an emotional response to an atrocity? Is it irrational to cry over the Holocaust because, hey, the Tsars didn't some pretty bad pogroms, too? No, emotional responses are perfectly fine and are a normal mode of thinking. Your fetishization of reason is dangerous and echoes the same rhetoric that enabled these atrocities: oh, they're not people, they're savages because X, so cut off their hands if they don't bring enough silver. The correct response here is to denounce colonialism, not to say, "oh, hey, it's not that bad because other people have done bad things."
Please don't do flamewars here.
Haha you're putting words in my mouth. Of course I have an emotional response to events of the past, usually negative like most people. I'm just separating that from the historical and factual response, and understanding the difference between the two.
The point is that it wasn't just Europeans that have done bad things in the past. It was every type of person. And now we can collectively move past with the lessons.
The point is that it wasn't just Europeans that have done bad things in the past. It was every type of person. And now we can collectively move past with the lessons.
Please don't do flamewars here.