> Technically speaking, they didn’t steal anything since they claimed the American territories as Spanish.
I don't see any technical fact of the matter here. These legalistic claims may have been true in the eyes of the Spanish of the time. But the rest of us are free to reject this worldview and, thus, the claims of legality.
Spanish law may say that 1) Spanish law applied in these territories and 2) that they were allowed to take what they took. But none of us have to credit these assertions. We are free to conclude that these assertions of sovereignty were illegitimate and that Spanish law is, therefore, irrelevant.
> This is not about Spanish law, but international maritime law.
This is about your original assertion that "they didn’t steal anything." And the answer to that depends on whatever the law was in the place where the supposed theft occurred. Spain would presumably take the position that this would be Spanish territorial law. But that merely begs the question, since the whole issue is whether Spanish colonial rule was legitimate.
> This is a bit anarchistic.
That's a bit ironic. One might say that it was Spain's colonization that was anarchistic, since it was done in obvious disregard of the laws and customs of the people living on that land at the time. Maybe today they are just dealing with the consequences.
In any case, I would imagine that the matter would be resolved by some sort of tribunal with competent jurisdiction. If they were to conclude that Spain's claim to the treasure were illegitimate because it was ill-gotten, that's hardly anarchism.
Of course, I'm not predicting that this will actually occur. In fact, I'm not sure I'm prepared to argue that it should occur. I'm merely pointing out that, if the assertion is "the Spanish stole," then arguing that they didn't, because the Spanish had colonized the country and claimed it as their territory, isn't very helpful, and perhaps missing the point. The person who thinks "the Spanish stole" would clearly also consider these unilateral Spanish proclamations to be illegitimate--and it's not obvious to me why they would be wrong.
> any_ country may be free from following international treaties and laws
An exaggeration, surely. The argument I'm making is specific to situations where today's legal rights directly depend on the legitimacy of historical territorial claims.
This is not about Spanish law, but international maritime law. The ship is Spanish and departed from Spanish territories at the time, thus they have a claim over it.
> We are free to conclude that these assertions of sovereignty were illegitimate and that Spanish law is, therefore, irrelevant.
This is a bit anarchistic. In your scenario, _any_ country may be free from following international treaties and laws, thus why would anyone follow them in the first place?
> The US is free to walk away and leave it how they found it,
The US didn't “find” it, it took it by force.
EDIT: From another colonial power. I’m not sure Spain is really in the market for a Carribean colony right now, so it might not be that easy for the US to walk away and leave PR in its pre-US position.
> Oh, by the way, Spain never had colonies. They had provinces and everyone in those provinces was just as citizen of the empire as someone from current Spain.
Um. Okay. A colony is:
1. "an area over which a foreign nation or state extends or maintains control"
and
2. "a group of people who establish residence in that area and who retain ties with the parent state."[1]
So, to say that Spain had no colonies is patently false- it most certainly had pockets of emigrants from the homeland who were still culturally tied to it and under its rule (the Philippines, Louisiana, any number of Caribbean islands, colonial Mexico, and the list goes on and on during Siglo de Oro and beyond).
I don't have a horse in this race, but if you wanna act like a pedant, you're gonna be treated like one. Ridiculous.
> I live in a country of people with diverse views. I feel it's ignorant to assume that I'm speaking on behalf of the majority of my fellow citizens.
You are speaking on behalf of the American mentality that you subscribe to. Thats who 'you' are.
> If you're actually fine with theft...we simply couldn't be further apart in our views
Its not you and I who are far apart in our 'views'. Its the American culture that you subscribe to and, well, the rest of the world's culture who are apart. Even more so with the Spanish culture. Getting flabbergasted at the difference and then 'rephrasing and reiterating' it as a bad thing will not change anything. Spaniards will not consider okupas thieves and the Spanish constitution's right to housing clause wont change.
So yes, this discussion is unproductive as you literally live in a world of capitalist philosophy that is quite distanced from the world that still keeps its humanity. Bye.
> Further, if they didn't want it, they were free to not contest it. They contested it. Given the circumstances, I see no leg to stand on to deny a more legitimate claim being held by Peruvians.
I'm not sure I see why someone contesting it makes them have a valid claim.
> The story you’re replying to happened in the United States.
I haven't seen any indicator of that at the time. Your comment does not mention anything in it about the US. Everyone is reading as if it happened in Spain. I don't even know whether occupying is possible in the US, bar a few specific states in certain conditions.
Regardless, it could have happened in Spain, and this is a topic related to Spain, my earlier comment still serves to make a statement in relation to the actual topic at hand.
>(Although one could say it was stolen from Colombia, through support of Panama independence.)
The Panamanian independence movement from Colombia had existed for decades. Did the US leverage it to obtain territory for the canal? Yes. Did independence reflect local sentiment? Yes.
>Spain insists that the bounty is theirs since it was aboard a Spanish ship
This quote is making my head spin, what a damn bold statement from a modern democracy.
"Yeah you know how our ancestors enslaved, murdered and plundered your natives? Well, we're calling dibs on that bounty, after all conquistadors dropped it as they were heading home."
Granted, the article doesn't establish who exactly is "Spain".
>>Spain insists that the bounty is theirs since it was aboard a Spanish ship
>This quote is making my head spin
It's one step up from "Finders...Keepers". It was in our possession last, so therefore it is still ours (shh, don't worry about how we got it or who we took it from).
> in Spain I’m told that would not make much of a difference
If you are told that, is simple. You are being lied (and pretty gullible).
Lied by the same people that keep repeating "Spain is baaad!, baaad!, baaah!, baaah!, baaah!".
Okay, Lets talk about judicial safety procedures. The entire trial was public, transparent, broadcasted in direct on TV, and can be watched in internet if you want to freely make your own opinion (and die of boredom). The sentence was justified in 493 pages that you can also read in this link, because... surprise! we, the PIGS, had the same ancient laws than in the rest of the stupendous Europe. We adopted this laws earlier in fact and Roman law is still studied and relevant for lawyers.
Please read it, watch it, explore the truth by yourself and don't hesitate to tell me if you find that there was something pigilesque and "uneuropean" here and in what part this people did not enjoyed the right of defense and a fair trial.
> Peaceful demonstrations were also organized
Oh, then is all fine. Lets continue this Anschluss and burn the city
Even if you are not, your philosophy seems to be from there. Works out to the same.
> I spent 2 years living in Spain
Yeah that should have given you the past, present and future knowledge of all things about Spain.
> Are you claiming that the average Spanish citizen believes that a typical person should be responsible for freeloaders rather than the government?
Excellent example of how you have been talking about a country without knowing about it. Spaniards dont call them freeloaders. Even using that word means that you are American in mentality even if not geographically. The attitude is that if those people need it and some well-off person ends up with okupas in his second house, no one bats an eye and many even would say 'the bastards deserve it'. And anyone who has an extra house is 'well-off'.
>That's a significant handicap Mexico has had to struggle since being a Spanish colony, and it hasn't helped in the various independence and revolutionary movements.
Please let me LOL again at the arguments you people are making.
I grew up in Mexico and being a Spanish colony 400 years ago, plus the independence and revolutionary movements you mention have had absolutely zero impact on my everyday life in the 21st century.
> I'm merely pointing out that you're assuming ignorance simply because I have a different opinion to you
Yes. You have a different opinion than me and the majority of Spaniards. Despite that you think that you can make statements on behalf of us. There comes the ignorance.
> Freeloaders, admittedly a charged word, is how I'd view someone
Spaniards don't.
> How is that any different to a mugger stealing your phone or your wallet?
Not different, and per Spanish law, theft up to a few hundred euros is not a crime either.
> It's convenient to imagine that the only people falling victim to this are those who can afford to have their property stolen from them.
Its not 'convenient'. Its how this works. Okupa movement stakes out houses, its owners and goes after the well-off. In a lot of cases they get help from within the community, or the occupier is someone from the neighborhood already. That's what 'professional' okupas help with - by helping poor locals occupy empty houses.
Surely occasionally an unhinged persona occupies someone's only house. But that's rare. The majority of occupation happens locally through the help of activist okupas.
...
Long story short, you have no idea about the culture and society you speak of, despite having lived here for 2 years, and you are still handing out statements and interpretations based on, well, American cultural mentality actually. Spanish culture is different. Its as simple as that. The difference between these two cultures can be seen in how things are in the specific countries.
Not that the other countries that imitate the US and the capitalist mentality are any different - even Scandinavian countries started to experience major inequality after adopting 'investment friendly' practices in the last few years. Americans themselves are escaping to other countries, including Spain, to escape the hellhole that it has become and gentrifying the people there in the process. North Europeans are doing it too - which is actually becoming a problem.
So that mentality doesn't work. It f*cks up societies. Stop preaching it.
I don't see any technical fact of the matter here. These legalistic claims may have been true in the eyes of the Spanish of the time. But the rest of us are free to reject this worldview and, thus, the claims of legality.
Spanish law may say that 1) Spanish law applied in these territories and 2) that they were allowed to take what they took. But none of us have to credit these assertions. We are free to conclude that these assertions of sovereignty were illegitimate and that Spanish law is, therefore, irrelevant.
reply