Talk:Asiento de Negros

message: The French version says the opposite that Spain didn't do the slave trade directly but bought this "ebony" to those allowed (asiento) politicaly.
The author makes an interesting comment comparing modern patent law to the way colonial governments looked at trading monopolies.  I'd like to open a discussion with the author on this but don't know how to contact him/her.  WmJnHlversn WmJnHlvrsn 17:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: French version

message: Up to this point, the only comment on the conditions of the enslaved people undergoing the horrors of the Asiento is this, "The best captains paid careful attention to the feeding of their slaves - primarily cornmeal mush, seasoned with peppers." It is pathetic failure of basic morality and historical accuracy that the editors of this article have so far failed to explore the history of the ethics of the Asiento. Of course I will not rule out the possibility that this failure is not accidental, but a deliberate attempt on the part of nationals whose country's of origin were involved in the slave trade to whitewash, minimize, justify and excuse this brutal chapter in history. Nor will I rule out that the editors so far have been motivated, not only by a pathetic need to defend the indefensible, but even worse, by actual contempt for their fellow human beings, based on the ill-gotten ideology of racism. And, before the perpetrators of this fraudulent article start howling in defence of its insulting nature, they should be reminded that the people enslaved by the asiento were human beings, with husbands, wives, children, brothers, sisters and friends. And, the fact that some African states, businesses and warlords were involved in a joint enterprise with their Euro-American business partners should never obscure the fact that millions of people were killed, forcibly deported and subjected to the most outrageous exploitation, humiliations and degradations as a result of the Asiento. To pretend otherwise is disgraceful and he editors up to this point should be utterly ashamed of themselves.  I'll be back.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ackees (talk • contribs) 09:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not very nice or honest you did not sign. Besides you sound like a priest or poet, not as researcher. Byebye from Amsterdam. Taksen (talk) 11:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Hello Mr Ackees, instead of being happy there is a lemma, you start to complain. I am one of the few who I added to this article and felt attacked. It seems other people are not exited about your comments either. I would not be surprised if you were living in one of the richest countries in the world, and not on the poorest continent. Byebye. Taksen (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The slave trade was a horrific episode of history.  However, it is only with the benefit on hindsight that we recognise that, following the campaigns from the 1780s for its abolition.  WP requires WP:NPOV.  It is important that articles should not seek to whitewash the trade and its participants, but it is equally important that it should not seek to blackwash those whose participation was at most very slight (such as Thomas Guy).  I suspect that Ackees' ire has been generated by comments that I put on the talk page of that article.  I would appreciate comments on what I raised there.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Peter. It is completely untrue to suggest that nobody thought the slave trade was 'horrific' until the campaigns of the 1780s. It is disingenous to say that 'we' think so only with hindsight, because obviously 'we' - that is wikipedia editors did not exist at that time, so the concept of our hindsight is irrelevant. I think that in using the racially loaded terms 'blackwash' and 'whitewash' in this specific context you are in danger of seeming like somebody intent on fanning the flames of discord. It is not neutral to pretend that the slave trade had no consequences for the individuals concerned - it simply false.Ackees (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pathetic, and probably deliberate Failure by Editors To Date to properly explore and explain this history 

message: Hello User:XPTO. It looks as if you changed all the Spanish names into Portuguese ones. It looks consistant. I hope this does not become an edit war with Spanish users. You could have given us an explanation of what you did, dont you think, especially as you dont have an user page, so we cannot see where you are from. If I remember well the names were changed before a few months ago.
Secondly Assiento with two ss's lookes stupid to me. The word is from the Spanish, and that should be shown and clear. Anyone else who has an opinion? Taksen (talk) 08:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Language

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Asiento. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090724111044/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org:80/Asiento to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Asiento
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Would it make more sense to have this titled "Asiento de Negros"? At the moment, we begin the article with an etymological description of what "asiento" in general means but then the entire article is about specifically the asiento for providing the Spanish Empire with African slaves. I guess we could keep the first paragraph of the article but put it under an etymology section, where it would probably be more useful. Torchist (talk) 10:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title? 

message: There is something in this page that does not match history. How do you explain that Spain would at the same time sell rights to trade slaves and forbid slavery ? Slavery was forbidden in the spanish colonies in all colonial times after 1535. At first sight, I would say that this page is 99% invented.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forest Ent (talk • contribs) 11:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It was banned to enslave Natives, so African slaves were imported.--Menah the Great (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange 

message: The present section keeps going on absurd tangents about Danish, Swedish, Dutch enslaving companies, wars in Europe and Spanish bankruptcies that are irrelevant to the people holding the Asiento contract, plus non-neutral comments like a seemingly sarcastic reference to "infidels" in  quotation marks and claims that the English "envied" the Dutch for profiting from the Asiento. A simple table with entries for dates, name, maybe nationality and other/further information (that is actually relevant to the entry in question, like the city he was established on, or the number of slaves imported) should suffice.--Menah the Great (talk) 02:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Holders of the Asiento", NPOV violation and not about the holders of the asiento 

message: !518    Decree of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V establishing the importation of African slaves to the Americas, under monopoly of Laurent de Gouvenot, in an attempt to discourage enslavement of Native Americans.
1528 	Charles V forbids the transportation of Native Americans to Europe, even on their own will, in an effort to curtail their enslavement. Encomiendas are banned from collecting tribute in gold with the reasoning that Natives were selling their children to get it. The Welser family is granted with the Asiento monopoly in Venezuela province. 
1530 	Outright slavery of Native Americans under any circumstance is banned. However, forced labor under the Encomienda continues.
1536 	The Welser family is dispossessed of the Asiento monopoly (granted in 1528) following complaints about their treatment of Native American workers in Venezuela.
1537 	New World 	Pope Paul III forbids slavery of the indigenous peoples of the Americas and any other population to be discovered, establishing their right to freedom and property (Sublimis Deus  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:586:4380:B400:F13C:BFE2:7915:8336 (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source?Taksen (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Asiento de Negros for Welser family