Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Captiva

Holy Grail of Shipwrecks

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Intrepido said:

Stolen? The land belong to his owner, and the owner of it in that time was the spanish empire.

It always cracks me up when folks say stuff like that.  Uh where you think the Inca's, Maya's, Aztecs and other great nations got all there lands from in the first place?   Every great culture that has been destroyed by another got there lands from some one else.  It's part of the cycle of life. If your not the big dog you become it's scraps.  This goes for all over the globe.  Many of the Native American tribes in North America got to there height of power by wiping out other Native American tribes before white man ever showed up.  So how exactly far back do we go?  Who was the rightful owners of those lands in the first place?  I don't think any one can actually track that far back lol

 

17 billion is a lot of money, would be nice if it was put back into a group that works for saving, preserving historical sites and items.   Some group not tied to any nation, but we all know that some one will have to get there grubby little fingers into that wealth.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Law of the Flag Definition:

A principle of maritime and international law; that the sailors and vessel will be subject to the laws of the state corresponding to the flag flown by the vessel.

In US v Jho, Justice Garza wrote:

"[T]he law of the flag doctrine ... provides that a merchant ship is part of the territory of the country whose flag she flies, and that actions aboard that ship are subject to the laws of the flag state.

"However ... jurisdiction may be exercised concurrently by a flag state and a territorial state.

"The law of the flag doctrine does not mandate that anything that occurs aboard a ship must be handled by the flag state.... [T]he law of the flag doctrine does not completely trump a sovereign's territorial jurisdiction to prosecute violations of its laws. The law of the flag doctrine is chiefly applicable to ships on the high seas, where there is no territorial sovereign; and as respects ships in foreign territorial waters it has little application beyond what is affirmatively or tacitly permitted by the local sovereign.

"The flag state's jurisdiction is not exclusive when the ship is in a port or internal waters of another state."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2018 at 3:11 PM, seanjo said:

People slag off the British Empire, but it's excesses were nothing compared to that of the Spanish and Portuguese Empires...and the Ottomans...

 Hold on there, portuguese acted differently from the spanish, you can't put both in the same bag. While the spanish used violence against the Aztecs, Incas and Mayas to get gold, the portuguese used a friendly aproach to brasillian natives with trade agreements and gifts (mirrors, spoons, etc... things they had never seen).

 In India was the same thing, and we only used arms against them a few times because we were forced to that not by own initiative. In Japan we made trade with them peacefully, we even introduced  them for the first time firearms and gunpowder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me descojono, jajajaja, tu vives en un universo paralelo chico, si, fuisteis muy buenos con los nativos brasileños, por eso exterminasteis a las tribus ribereñas cercanas a los asentamientos costeros, por no hablar del comercio de esclavos, ¿o es que el color le cambió al nativo brasileño por tomar el sol en la playa? 

Eu sou descojono, hahaha, você mora em um universo paralelo chico, sim, você era muito bom com os nativos brasileiros, por isso você exterminou como tribus ribeirinhas perto dos assentamentos costeiros, para no mencionar o tráfico de escravos, ou é que a cor Ele mudou o nativo brasileiro para tomar banho de sol na praia?

Soy descojono, jajaja, vives en un universo paralelo chico, sí, fuiste muy bueno con los nativos brasileños, es por eso que exterminaste las tribus ribereñas cerca de los asentamientos costeros, sin mencionar la trata de esclavos, o es ese el color ¿Cambió el nativo brasileño para tomar el sol en la playa?

Edited by pepepotamo
corrección gramatical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Por otro lado, es una pena que os creáis todo lo que se ve en el cine y en las series, por no hablar de las novelitas. Me apena, Cabral, que nos tengas tanto odio, puesto que compartimos muchas cosas, incluso casi un siglo siendo el mismo territorio, y durante ese período nos fue bastante bien, las separación de algo que debería ser natural, la causaron otras potencias europeas a las que no interesaba que siguiéramos unidos; pero eso es otra historia, al igual que cuando Felipe II fue rey consorte de Inglaterra durante un año; eso no lo saben muchos, pero deberían aprender y no fiarse de fuentes no contrastadas o manipuladas. Siguiendo con lo malos que fuimos, hay una diferencia fundamental entre vuestros países y el nuestro. Como bien expresó un compañero antes, en los territorios de Castilla o Españoles, los nuevos territorios conquistados no eran meras colonias, automáticamente eran equiparados en estatus, leyes, derechos y obligaciones a los que formaban la Península Ibérica, lo mismo que sus habitantes. Salvando las distancias éticas, pues hay que situarse en la época a la que nos referimos y con la mentalidad de la misma, pues es contraproducente y totalmente equivocado referirse a esos años con la mentalidad y criterios actuales; haced un ejercicio de autocrítica y mirad si se fundó o cuando en ese período llamemoslo colonial, alguna universidad en esas tierras descubiertas, por poner un ejemplo.

Por outro lado, é uma pena que você acredite em tudo que vê nos filmes e na série, sem mencionar os romances. Me incomoda, Cabral, que você nos odeie tanto, já que compartilhamos muitas coisas, até quase um século sendo o mesmo território, e durante esse período nos saímos bem, a separação de algo que deveria ser natural, causada por outras potências européias para aqueles que não nos interessavam ficar juntos; mas isso é outra história, assim como quando Felipe II foi rei consorte da Inglaterra durante um ano; Muitos não sabem disso, mas devem aprender e não confiar em fontes que não sejam contrastadas ou manipuladas. Continuando com o quão ruim nós éramos, há uma diferença fundamental entre seus países e os nossos. Como bem expressou um colega antes, nos territórios de Castela ou de espanhóis, os novos territórios conquistados não eram meras colônias, eram automaticamente equiparados em status, leis, direitos e obrigações àqueles que formavam a Península Ibérica, bem como seus habitantes. Salvando as distâncias éticas, porque é necessário situar-se no tempo a que nos referimos e com a mentalidade das mesmas, pois é contraproducente e totalmente equivocado referir-se a esses anos com a mentalidade e critérios vigentes; fazer um exercício de autocrítica e ver se foi fundada ou quando nesse período a chamamos de colonial, alguma universidade naquelas terras descobertas, para dar um exemplo.

On the other hand, it's a pity that you believe everything you see in the movies and in the series, not to mention the novels. It bothers me, Cabral, that you hate us so much, since we share many things, even almost a century being the same territory, and during that period we did quite well, the separation of something that should be natural, caused by other European powers to those that did not interest us to stay together; but that is another story, just as when Felipe II was king consorte of England during a year; Many do not know that, but they should learn and not rely on sources that are not contrasted or manipulated. Continuing with how bad we were, there is a fundamental difference between your countries and ours. As expressed well by a colleague before, in the territories of Castile or Spaniards, the new conquered territories were not mere colonies, they were automatically equated in status, laws, rights and obligations to those who formed the Iberian Peninsula, as well as its inhabitants. Salvando the ethical distances, because it is necessary to be placed in the time to which we refer and with the mentality of the same, because it is counterproductive and totally wrong to refer to those years with the current mentality and criteria; do an exercise of self-criticism and see if it was founded or when in that period we call it colonial, some university in those lands discovered, to give an example.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2018 at 5:11 PM, seanjo said:

Spain enslaved and murdered millions of natives while stealing their land, in the name of religion and profit.

 

People slag off the British Empire, but it's excesses were nothing compared to that of the Spanish and Portuguese Empires...and the Ottomans...

 

That's why there are no natives in South America and the North is full of them.

Manda huevos....

Edito: Pepe, déjale. Este lava así su complejo de ser palanganero de los  británicos. Sabe tanto, que hasta incluye a los mayas.....

Edited by CeltiberoClearco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, pepepotamo said:

Por otro lado, es una pena que os creáis todo lo que se ve en el cine y en las series, por no hablar de las novelitas. Me apena, Cabral, que nos tengas tanto odio, puesto que compartimos muchas cosas, incluso casi un siglo siendo el mismo territorio, y durante ese período nos fue bastante bien, las separación de algo que debería ser natural, la causaron otras potencias europeas a las que no interesaba que siguiéramos unidos; pero eso es otra historia, al igual que cuando Felipe II fue rey consorte de Inglaterra durante un año; eso no lo saben muchos, pero deberían aprender y no fiarse de fuentes no contrastadas o manipuladas. Siguiendo con lo malos que fuimos, hay una diferencia fundamental entre vuestros países y el nuestro. Como bien expresó un compañero antes, en los territorios de Castilla o Españoles, los nuevos territorios conquistados no eran meras colonias, automáticamente eran equiparados en estatus, leyes, derechos y obligaciones a los que formaban la Península Ibérica, lo mismo que sus habitantes. Salvando las distancias éticas, pues hay que situarse en la época a la que nos referimos y con la mentalidad de la misma, pues es contraproducente y totalmente equivocado referirse a esos años con la mentalidad y criterios actuales; haced un ejercicio de autocrítica y mirad si se fundó o cuando en ese período llamemoslo colonial, alguna universidad en esas tierras descubiertas, por poner un ejemplo.

Por outro lado, é uma pena que você acredite em tudo que vê nos filmes e na série, sem mencionar os romances. Me incomoda, Cabral, que você nos odeie tanto, já que compartilhamos muitas coisas, até quase um século sendo o mesmo território, e durante esse período nos saímos bem, a separação de algo que deveria ser natural, causada por outras potências européias para aqueles que não nos interessavam ficar juntos; mas isso é outra história, assim como quando Felipe II foi rei consorte da Inglaterra durante um ano; Muitos não sabem disso, mas devem aprender e não confiar em fontes que não sejam contrastadas ou manipuladas. Continuando com o quão ruim nós éramos, há uma diferença fundamental entre seus países e os nossos. Como bem expressou um colega antes, nos territórios de Castela ou de espanhóis, os novos territórios conquistados não eram meras colônias, eram automaticamente equiparados em status, leis, direitos e obrigações àqueles que formavam a Península Ibérica, bem como seus habitantes. Salvando as distâncias éticas, porque é necessário situar-se no tempo a que nos referimos e com a mentalidade das mesmas, pois é contraproducente e totalmente equivocado referir-se a esses anos com a mentalidade e critérios vigentes; fazer um exercício de autocrítica e ver se foi fundada ou quando nesse período a chamamos de colonial, alguma universidade naquelas terras descobertas, para dar um exemplo.

On the other hand, it's a pity that you believe everything you see in the movies and in the series, not to mention the novels. It bothers me, Cabral, that you hate us so much, since we share many things, even almost a century being the same territory, and during that period we did quite well, the separation of something that should be natural, caused by other European powers to those that did not interest us to stay together; but that is another story, just as when Felipe II was king consorte of England during a year; Many do not know that, but they should learn and not rely on sources that are not contrasted or manipulated. Continuing with how bad we were, there is a fundamental difference between your countries and ours. As expressed well by a colleague before, in the territories of Castile or Spaniards, the new conquered territories were not mere colonies, they were automatically equated in status, laws, rights and obligations to those who formed the Iberian Peninsula, as well as its inhabitants. Salvando the ethical distances, because it is necessary to be placed in the time to which we refer and with the mentality of the same, because it is counterproductive and totally wrong to refer to those years with the current mentality and criteria; do an exercise of self-criticism and see if it was founded or when in that period we call it colonial, some university in those lands discovered, to give an example.

  Yo no te odio, la mitad de lo que digo es solo roleplay, es el viejo sentimiento de los portugueses después de la muerte del rey D Sebastián y la pérdida de la independencia que dejó un gran amargo en la boca.

 Tengo que reconocer que las colonias portuguesas no siempre foran pacíficas, pero en los estados de la historia cuentan que eran menos violentas que la españolas. Hasta en las películas ustedes siempre son los malos. 😜

 En cuanto a la nación española en el juego, podré jugar en vuestra nación en el futuro. Me gustaría experimentar más naciones y España no está excluida.

 Alucard, espero que no haya más resentimiento entre nosotros, ya es hora de olvidar esta rivalidad antigua, después de todo, esto es sólo un juego.

 

 Saludos y buenos vientos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2018 at 4:21 PM, Kjartan said:

Nonsense, Arguably it goes to the Surviving indigenous peoples in which it was stolen....

It was not stolen because back in those days that territory was Spain. The same Spain as Madrid (our capital) because ,just for your information, territories in America or wherever were treated as part of the Spanish Kingdom, and that goes also for all the people living there. They were spanish citizens by all rights.

On 5/24/2018 at 5:08 PM, seanjo said:

Exactly it was/is full of valuable goods stolen from the indigenous Natives.

 

Read above.

On 5/24/2018 at 5:08 PM, Capt Aerobane said:

Spain's "ownership" was established via one of the greatest mass violations of fundamental human rights in history, I don't think Spain wants to claim its baggage from this era. If they take responsibility for this cargo, they should also take should take responsibility for the agony and genocide they inflicted on the indigenous people of central and South America which allowed them to acquire that gold. 

That's one of the most annoying posts I've read for a long time. You just have no idea of what you are talking about. 

1- First mistake: you look back to 1492 with XXI century eyes. If you want to build an empire, you don't always build it by talks, do you? Sometimes you can talk and reach agreements and sometimes you simply don't, so the power of war speaks instead. The vikings, the romans, all civilizations did it in the past, ALL. Not only Spain, no, ALL. 

2- "Greatest mass violations of fundamental human rights in history". ------> I can only LOL at this sentence. 

What violations? Do you know that the majority of indigenous people in America were actually colonised without firing a single shot? With what army could Spain have commited those violations that you talk of? Do you really know how many soldiers had Spain at that time in America? No, you clearly don't know because it's easier to say that they commited a genocide without a single evidence.

First, for your information, there were tribes in America at that time that were slaughtering others even with cannibalism, religious sacrifices and that kind of civilized behaviour.

Isabel of Castile wanted that all the people in those territories were considered spaniards the same way a man from Madrid is, she granted them rights of ownership for their lands and ordered that they MUST be treated well, paid for their work (YES, paid for their work, you've read it right: paid for their work) and that they were free people, not slaves. All this was created in Las Leyes de Burgos in 1512 -----> google it

In 1532 Carlos I banned slavery in any circumstance. 

In 1542 the "encomiendas" were banned.

Felipe II ordered this: from now on you will punish with greater rigor the Spaniards who injure, offend or mistreat the Indians, than if the same crimes were committed against the Spaniards.  NOW, TELL ME WHERE AND WHEN ANOTHER COUNTRY DID THIS IN FAVOUR OF COLONISED PEOPLE, DO IT PLEASE.

In 1542 Spain created the "protector de indios (indegenous protector), which was a legal figure to protect and ensure well-being for the native people.

I can carry on explaining more things that Spain did but I don't feel like doing it. You'd better read more books.

The real problem Spain had was that the indigenous people were not prepared to dealing with european diseases and in fact, those diseases killed a lot of people and NOT THE SPANISH, YOU IGNORANT.

On 5/24/2018 at 5:11 PM, seanjo said:

Spain enslaved and murdered millions of natives while stealing their land, in the name of religion and profit.

 

People slag off the British Empire, but it's excesses were nothing compared to that of the Spanish and Portuguese Empires...and the Ottomans...

 

"Spain enslaved and murdered millions of natives while stealing their land, in the name of religion and profit" ------> You should read above .

Spain didn't kill and enslaved millions of natives. Diseases did, and slavery was banned in 1532 so your point is wrong.

Every empire commits, commited and will commit excesses. Nothing new here, but in the case of Spain all the british propaganda is absolutelly bullshit.

In fact, you should know that 80% of wealth remained in America. It's know as the "quinto del rey" (1/5 for the king). 

So, that land was rich in gold and other materials but those materials were not being exploited, because they didn't know they had any value.

Spain went there, knew the value, and as part of the Spanish Kingdom did use those materials to create wealth and well-being for the people. Only 20% of wealth actually came to Spain.

Spain created universities, hospitals, roads, cities, everything....Man, some of those cities were richer than the capital...

Now, tell me what empire did this like Spain?

On 5/24/2018 at 5:42 PM, Capt Aerobane said:

So, do you deny that Spain exploited and enslaved the indigenous peoples of the Americas? Or does it not count if it's part of "encomienda"? I'm an American and make no mistake we have a blood stained history too, my comments are not meant to demean Spain. But to outright deny any wrongdoing by Spain is revisionism.

You should read above too. Encomiendas were banned in 1542. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 4:21 PM, Kjartan said:

Nonsense, Arguably it goes to the Surviving indigenous peoples in which it was stolen....

Stolen?. Evidently you do not know the History of Humanity. Empires there have been a thousand, starting with Mesopotamia to the current Economic Empire that dominates the world. If this is not worth it, I will tell you that through Spain passed Phoenicians, Greeks, Carthaginians, Romans, Visigoths, Muslims and the last empire that passed through Spain the French Empire of Napoleon. And we have not accused any of robbing us. Simplicely we know that for good or bad, this is how the History of Humanity has been made. By the way, those you say "stolen" were also empires that "stole" other peoples of America. Who is free from guilt, who throws the first Stone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 12:28 AM, Cabral said:

 Hold on there, portuguese acted differently from the spanish, you can't put both in the same bag. While the spanish used violence against the Aztecs, Incas and Mayas to get gold, the portuguese used a friendly aproach to brasillian natives with trade agreements and gifts (mirrors, spoons, etc... things they had never seen).

Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas
(Seville, 1474 - Madrid, 1566) Spanish religious, defender of the rights of the indigenous people at the beginning of the colonization of America. 
Moved by the abuses of the Spanish settlers towards the Indians and by the gradual extinction of these, Bartolomé de Las Casas undertook a campaign since then to defend the human rights of the Indians; to set an example, he began by renouncing himself to the encomienda granted him by the governor of Cuba, denouncing the Castilian institution as a form of covert slavery of the Indians (1514). The ideas of Las Casas were echoed in the metropolis, where around 1540 the debate broke out over the titles with which Spain exercised dominion over the Indies. The revision of the Indian legislation dates from the same period, with the adoption of the so-called New Laws (1542-43), in which some Lascasian points of view were reflected: the consideration of the Indians as free men who could not be enslaved nor submitted to painful work and the prohibition of creating new encomiendas, dissolving immediately those of ecclesiastics and royal officials.

That is the abuse and violence of the Spaniards on the American Indians. Protected by law their rights as people since the mid-sixteenth century. Of course there were abuses among the Spanish colonizers towards the indigenous people, something that has always been denounced, but it is already well of black legend. By the way Cabral, Portugal was one of the countries that more slaves took from Africa to Portugal and later to the New World. Do not want to get out on a tangent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sento de Benimaclet said:

Portugal was one of the countries that more slaves took from Africa to Portugal and later to the New World.

 And was the first nation in the world to abolish slavery, we saw our mistakes very early.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Cabral said:

 And was the first nation in the world to abolish slavery, we saw our mistakes very early.

Actualy GB was first to abolish the act of slavery in 1807,  although the use of slaves in their colonies stopped in 1822.  Portugal was earlier in 1761 however carried on the use of slaves in their African colonies until 1869, following a treaty between United States and Britain for the suppression of the slave trade.  The charter of 19 September 1761 did not abolish slavery in Portugal, it prohibited the transportation of slaves from the empire (Africa, Asia, America) into the kingdom (Portugal).

 So technically yes Portugal was first to stop transportation to Portugal itself, although use of slaves within colonies carried on later than those of GB.

 

 

Edited by Dibbler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pick an Empire, any Empire, you will see exactly the same allegations laid against them all. Violations against human rights, what human rights? The Empires did not have any form of human rights legislation as we know them. Some Empires did make efforts in that direction, within the context of the times they were enabled they were progressive and the basis of todays human rights legislation. Even the US Constitution, which is still an enlightened document in many respects (as is Magna Carta upon which the Constitution is based), said categorically slaves were chattel's, property to be disposed of as their owners decreed with none of the equality it clearly espoused . it was a product of it's times, moulded by the culture of it's time, and not as todays politically correct would have us believe, a means to keep slaves in their place. The tribes of Africa did more to perpetrate slavery than any Empire, they abducted neighboring tribes to sell into slavery yet the Empires are the villains. The Royal Navy was chasing down slavers for years before the importation of slaves to the Caribbean and continental U.S. was banned, and Wilberforce's slavery bill is generally ignored by the PC brigades.

Then of course we have Genocide, Many indigenous populations were all but wiped out by diseases like smallpox, in the time when the European's were carving out their Empires there was little knowledge of how smallpox was transmitted, no Vaccines either, so is it not more likely that this particular tragedy played out through Ignorance rather than a deliberate policy like Manifest Destiny? Even today Genocide is rife, African tribes still try to wipe each other out, yet, the big bad Empires are held responsible, despite tribal feuds that have dated back for millennia. 

Exploration was an expensive venture, substantial capital was invested and a return on that investment was expected, many South American cultures had no use for gold, silver and some other minerals, it held no meaning to them, so how can you exploit a people out of minerals they hold no interest in? The same holds true today, drug companies invest trillions in new drugs, often they are as dangerous as the diseases they combat and are sold at immense profit, often denying the product to those who need it the most. I wonder which philosophy is worse?

Mankind has not changed, merely shifted focus from making a profit from territory they have conquered to controlling lifestyle choices, one day, those who are trying to force lifestyle changes will stand as condemned as the old Empires are, it is easier to lay blame, to keep old grievances burning, than to make a real effort to solve problems, Carrie Nation practiced Eugenics, as did Germany post Weimar Republic, Eugenics does not work, the Prohibition of  alcohol alongside tobacco in the 1930's and World War II proved it beyond doubt, yet, here we are in the 21st century making the very same mistakes, such is human nature.   

France, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Portugal, Italy, and Great Britain all held Colonies or Empires, all had differing methods of control, all have blood on their hands, all have done right and wrong, but it was done within the culture and context of their specific times, not the culture or times we have now, for today we no longer bully or persecute countries we conquered as Rome did, but our own people, is the 21st century culture any better, or different, than the old Empires? Perhaps in a hundred years we too will stand damned, as the men and nations who created the great Empires are damned today.    

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Sir Lancelot Holland said:

Pick an Empire, any Empire, you will see exactly the same allegations laid against them all.  

 

Aye very true, it was a different age with different values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×