the majority of the population in South America are of Indian descent, it seems the main objective was never to annihilate them or rob them their land.
Well, one of three is not good for a mind as great as Apostatethunder, He who Sees Easily What I Cannot Possibly Comprehend.
You know, " inform yourself before making conclusions"
The majority of the population in South America are of Indian descent.
Ha-ha. Let's see what the CIA Factbook says about that:
Brazil (205 million people):
white 53.7%, mulatto (mixed white and black) 38.5%, black 6.2%, other (includes Japanese, Arab, Amerindian) 0.9%, unspecified 0.7% (2000 census) = 203 million non-Indians.
Argentina (42 million):
white (mostly Spanish and Italian) 97%, mestizo (mixed white and Amerindian ancestry), Amerindian, or other non-white groups 3%
40 million non-Indians
Uruguay (3 million):
white 88%, mestizo 8%, black 4%, Amerindian (practically nonexistent)
2.64 million non Indians.
Colombia: 45 million
mestizo 58%, white 20%, mulatto 14%, black 4%, mixed black-Amerindian 3%, Amerindian 1%
41 million non-Indians.
With these four countries alone, we already have 290 million non-Indian South Americans.
Because I don't feel like adding up the figures from the CIA Factbook (and because I know I don't have to), I will be using the population figure from the Wikipedia, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_America: 387 and a half million South Americans.
Do you want to revise your statement that "the majority of the population in South America are of Indian descent"? No?
it seems the main objective was never to annihilate them
Good hunch. The objective (not just "the main") was to make them work for the Spanish (or the Portuguese) for free. Will you please illuminate me with more light from your Great Mind?
or rob them their land.
This must be the shadow of the pure shine you just gave out. Who are you kidding?
The Conquistadores were so cruel because they, simple farmers in Spain or Portugal, were authorized by their King to take as much land as possible. The idea being that those conquistadores were still subjects of the King. The more land they grabbed, the larger the kingdom would be.
By the way, Indians were freed by the King. Formally, they were not slaves. The reason was that the King had a tug-of-war with the whites he had sent to the American continent, which he saw as mere stupid farmers. They had so much land, you see, that they could come up with the idea of creating kingdoms of their own (hence Latin American independence). So the King (and the Church) came to the rescue: the Indians were declared to have souls (by the Grace of God), but, at the same time, to be inferior, to be perpetual children who needed the guidance of the whites (and Catechism). That was why they were "entrusted" to white landlords, who, in turn were "authorized" to employ them for gain. Oh, but the Indians were the dear property of the King, their lovely father. If the Spanish conquistador didn't behave, he would not get any indians to work for him. Someone else would teach them the Good News. And what good is a farm as large as a country if there is no one to farm it?
My little mind has the facts, and Apostatethunder's doesn't?
By the way, according to the CIA Factbook:
Fertility rates in
Argentina: 2.29 (96th in the world)
Bolivia: 2.93 (65th)
Brazil: 2.16 (106th)
Chile: 1.87 (145th)
Colombia: 2.12 (111th)
Ecuador: 2.38 (91st)
Paraguay: 2.06 (120th)
Peru: 2.29 (95th)
Uruguay: 1.87 (144th)
Venezuela: 2.4 (89th)
What about India, where Roman Catholics are not the majority religious group?
Saudi Arabia: 2.26 (100th)
South Africa (7.1% Catholics): 2.28 (97th)
Puerto Rico (85% Roman Catholics): 1.63
Norway (Roman Catholic, 1%): 1.77
Can anyone please explain how come Catholic Puerto Rico has a lower fertility rate than nominally Protestant Norway? Maybe the Pope, with his insistence in people not using contraceptives? Are Puerto Ricans specially disregarding the Pope?