Talk:Military history of Puerto Rico/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Pictures

Why are all the pictures on the right? Don't you think the page would look better if they were more scattered? ~ Taylorr 13:54, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Spanish title

I'm a big proponent of multilingualism, but do we need the Spanish translation of the title? I was under the impression that non-English titles are given typically only for proper nouns. ~ Dpr 09:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the statement above.-Marine 69-71
Thanks for taking care of that. Kudos on the page, by the way! ~ Dpr 07:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sub-nation

Could we get some kind of source/documentation/link for the appelation "sub-nation"? I'm not doubting its validity, but I think that might be a good thing to have. Thanks! ~ Dpr 07:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

re Last edit

It seems the originators of this FA established that the "military" history did not begin upon its discovery, just as the "military history" of Massachusetts didn't begin in 1620. I will leave THIS revert to those more in the know. Sfahey 30 June 2005 03:46 (UTC)

"military history" etc.

hi. I also don't agree that "the military history of Puerto Rico dates back to the 16th Century". Also, I am not sure about the continuation of this history into the modern period of ceding sovereignty to the U.S. - from Colombus through independence and until U.S. control, it is the military history a more or less (less as a colony, more as a nation) autonomous region. The role of Puerto Riccans in the U.S. Military seems to me part of a somewhat different article. Perhaps it would be better to name the article "military history of Puerto Rico in the post-Colombian era" and end it at the U.S. occupation with just a short summary of the later episodes. This is beyond me at the moment though as I'm new here... I hope someone could make something of these suggestions.

Unless there is a more formal definition of "Military History" to be adhered to that I am unaware of, I think it is OK to keep the activities of Puerto Rican Military Persons as part of the Military History of the Island. However, unless documentation can be provided that there was never any violent conflict on the island before White people arrived (which I highly doubt), there are serious problems with the unqualified statement that the "Military History of Puerto Rico dates back to the 16th Century." Leaving out the military story of the Puerto Rican Indians who were there earlier is actually non-nuetral, as it makes it appear that war is a white, or Western, or Old-World invention, and not a human phenomenon.
Perhaps a revision could be "European Military History," "Formally Documented Military History" or even simply "The Military History of the Puerto Rican Indians was...(unknown? undocumented? or describe it?)"William Przylucki 30 June 2005 15:02 (UTC)

Clarification

  • O.K., I will attempt to clarify some of the comments written above. Until the arrival of the Spaniards to the island of Puerto Rico, there was "no" organized military institution. That's why there is no military history of the Aztecs, Mayas or Apaches, even though they my have fought other tribes. The military history in the island, as stated, started when the Spanish military institution fought the native Tainos. Another point that I wanted to make is that before Puerto Rico was invaded by the United States, Puerto Rico was already a "nation" with its own culture, customs, language, currency and political structure. Puerto Rico had been granted autonomous powers which eventually would prepare it for independence. American citizenship, without the right to vote for president, was imposed upon the Puerto Ricans without a referendem or consultation. The majority of the Puerto Ricans such as myself first consider ourselves "Puerto Rican". Puerto Rico is a "territory" and not a state and is under the list of the United Nations as a "nation" to be discolonized. Puerto Rico participates as an independent nation in certain events such as the Olympics and Miss Universe pageants. The title of this article is proper and should stay as is because it is about the miliatry events in which the people of Puerto Rico have participated. Just enjoy the article. Tony the Marine 30 June 2005 15:35 (UTC)

What an ethno-centric point of view!

My first thought on reading the first sentence of this article was, "What a European way of looking at things". Of course there was military action in Puerto Rico before the Spanish showed up. I know very little of Puerto Rico's history, but it took me 30 seconds with google to turn up an article which says, "About 100 years before the Spanish invasion, the Taínos were challenged by an invading South American tribe - the Caribs". If I could uncover evidence of pre-European military history in 30 seconds, imagine how good a job might have been done in an afternoon?

New York City had the same problem. At one point, the article said something like "The first settlers arived in New York in 16XX". It then proceeded to describe how these "first settlers" threw out the people who already lived there. It seems to be a common idea that nothing happened anywhere before the Europeans arrived.

I would have hoped for better from a featured article. --RoySmith 30 June 2005 18:17 (UTC)

On a slightly different note, I am surprised that this pretty good article made it through the FAC gauntlet, especially since the entire second half is more "Military histories of Puerto Ricans".Sfahey 1 July 2005 03:38 (UTC)
  • The article stated above, does state that the Tainos and the Caribs fought amongst themselves, they did not have an organized military structure with a chain of command. Even cavemen fought amongst themselves and yet you cannot state that theirs was a military action. It is very clear that the article tells about the first miliatry action in Puerto Rico involving an organized military structure, such as the Spanish Army against a tribe. The early American Natives did not and still do not have an organized military structure. Tony the Marine 30 June 2005 19:09 (UTC)

Bacillary dysentery not plague

Previous historical references concerning the Count of Cumberland invasion to Puerto Rico, have described a epidemic outbreak of bacillary dysentery caused by shigellosis and not plague as previously ascribed to in the article.

References: Colle y Toste, Cayetano, Boletin Historico de Puerto Rico, Tomo V: 40-70. 1918.

Dr. Oscar Costa-Mandry, "Bacillary Dysentery in Puerto Rico", The Puerto Rican Journal of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, 10(3)1935,pp 308-348.

Bernard Christenson MD, FACP,FIDSA bchristenson64@netscape.net

Military History Definition

I'm sorry Tony the Marine, but I have to continue to disagree with the statement that the Military history of Puerto Rico began with the arrival of Europeans, and I have many reasons. First of all, I think there is a misunderstanding of Military history. Wikipedia's article on the subject says that warring between tribes does constitute Military history. Secondly, I find it hard to believe that these tribes didn't have military structures when every other Indian tribe I know of did, at least in the level of having a chief of some sort, and then the warriors. Additionally, the Spanish "army" you speak of wasn't necessarily an army as such, it tended to be mercenary in nature, and there were all types of irregularities in how each squad functioned. None of them were de facto loyal to the Crown of Spain either, when not in hire by said Crown. Therefore, by your definition, the article should really start well after the European arrival.

I would also suggest that if an invasion of an entire island does not constitute "Military history" than large portions of great importance of the following wars also do not constitute "Military history" by virtue of having only disorganized fighters on one or both sides:

  • Vietnam
  • The Spanish Civil War
  • The American Revolution

...To name a few. I suggest that you or somebody else (and if I find time it will be me) do the necessary research to provide a pre-European Military history of Puerto Rico. Until this section is added, I feel that this article is not of nuetral POV because it in fact contains a Euro-centric POV.Billy P


  • I originated the article and worked together with many other disngished Wikipedians to bring it up to featured article status. Even though I myself believe that there must have been some fighting between the Tainos and the Caribs and it generally believed that there were some skirmishs between these two groups, I haven't found a realiable source which can comfirm it. I would love to include in the Military history of Puerto Rico any event that went on during the Pre-Columbian era but, until that is the case, then I cannot. The website cited above mentions something however, they fail to cite their source of information. My work is based on research and therefore it not POV but, fact. I believe that after passing the scrutiny of some of the respected Wikipedians reafirms what I'm saying. I will countinue to do research and when I find a reliable reference as to any military action in Puerto Rico before the arrival of Columbus, then I'll do the upgrade. Tony the Marine 4 July 2005 01:11 (UTC)
I should add that I do think it is a great article and I have no problem with it reaching feature status. I am also not demanding that information be added that can't possibly be researched, that would clearly be absurd. What I'm saying is that the wording of "The military history of Puerto Rico dates back to the 16th century..." implies that there definately was not a military history before that, and therefore shortchanges the human history of the area prior to European arrival. I suggest that the wording be changed to "recorded military history." Even better, we could change it to "The Euro-American military history of Puerto Rico..." because, really, that's what the article is about. Let's call a spade a spade.Billy P 5 July 2005 14:57 (UTC)