curprev18:4118:41, 16 November 2018 LtMillsaptalkcontribs 6,779 bytes0 Undid revision 869146931 by BilCat (talk) Are you being intentionally condescending? I think maybe you have the wrong impression of me: I'm not making this edit because I'm some liberal SJW. I'm not making this edit because it's "PC", I'm making this edit because people who spend their lives studying this very subject agree that 'conquest' is an inaccurate, outdated term for the events following Euro-American contact.undoTag: Undo
curprev18:0018:00, 16 November 2018 LtMillsaptalkcontribs 6,779 bytes0 Undid revision 869139782 by BilCat (talk)I have cited modern scholars & scholars contemporary to Spanish colonization. I have given examples. I can reference numerous books & articles on this subject. You have done none of those things. You have given no explanation except your own opinion. I do not doubt your good intentions, but you keep insisting that you're correct without demonstrating HOW or WHY.undoTag: Undo
curprev06:1306:13, 2 November 2018 LtMillsaptalkcontribs 6,659 bytes0 Undid revision 866888334 by BilCat (talk) I did not mean to imply that you don't know what you're talking about. If it came off that way I apologize, truly. This is, however, a subject with which I am very familiar. Just as you are extremely versed in militaria and military tech, I am well versed in the history of Atlantic World & the Columbian Exchange.undoTag: Undo
curprev05:0005:00, 2 November 2018 LtMillsaptalkcontribs 6,659 bytes0 Undid revision 866883131 by BilCat (talk) If that's the case, BilCat, then please allow my edit to stand. Respectfully, it sounds like I may know more about this topic than you do. If you'd like recommended reading re: use of the term "conquest" in relation to the Americas I will happily oblige you.undoTag: Undo
curprev03:5103:51, 2 November 2018 LtMillsaptalkcontribs 6,659 bytes0 Undid revision 866568029 by BilCat (talk) I'm not trying to be a pest, I promise. Conquest is an inaccurate term. Even Bartolomé de las Casas, writing in the 16th C during the so-called conquest, considered use of the term "abusive, improper, and infernal". Modern scholars like Yves Winter have demonstrated that "conquest" is not a neutral descriptor. BilCat, if you still insist that "conquest" is more accurate please explain how.undoTag: Undo
curprev03:4903:49, 31 October 2018 LtMillsaptalkcontribs 6,659 bytes0 Undid revision 866019260 by BilCat (talk) I realize I am a lowly upstart editor but, respectfully, "invasion" is a more accurate term than the outdated "conquest". Many native peoples in the Americas were never "conquered" because they actively cooperated in the invasion or found alternative ways to accommodate European "conquerors". Scholars such as Matthew Restall argue that the so-called "conquest" remains incomplete even today.undoTag: Undo
curprev14:5314:53, 20 February 2013 Dhrosstalkcontribs 6,301 bytes+226 West Indian, Francophone, historically Dutch, etc. nations are not "effectively" "culturally" Latin America: Added "sometimes" vice "effectively"; "Citation needed"; referenced Latin America Etymology page.undo
curprev15:1015:10, 19 June 2011 Thaytstalkcontribs 5,364 bytes−1 Saint -> Sint (Eustatius); per ISO correction, see http://www.iso.org/iso/newsletter_vi-9_fiji-myanmar_and_other_minor_corrections-incl_bulgaria.pdfundo
curprev03:0803:08, 18 August 2009 68.37.43.51talk 4,617 bytes+14 I added "the territory" to the 2nd paragraph in order to differentiate Puerto Rico from the prior list of countries, as Puerto Rico is indeed NOT a Country.undo
curprev09:3909:39, 11 July 2006 88.11.207.13talk 3,629 bytes+116 The Bahamas form part of the Antilles based on Encarta in Spanish: http://es.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761555176/Antillas.htmlundo
