Until the peace of Münster, signed by the United Provinces and Spain in 1648, which put an end to the so-called War of Flanders between the Netherlands and Spain, there was everything:fluctuation of the borders depending on the support of France and England to the United Provinces and the fronts that Spain had open; the Portuguese-Dutch War; offers from the “crown” of the rebel provinces to several European houses, for that of legitimizing their uprising and seeking a just lord; peace conferences to try to reconcile the parties, such as the one in Cologne sponsored by Emperor Rodolfo II; a truce that lasted 12 years... and the death of the main protagonists, William of Orange in 1584, assassinated by a "bounty hunter", and Philip II in 1598.
Philip II – William Orange
In any case, there is a detail that squeaks me, and it is Guillermo's insistence, at least in public, to show that there was no desire for an open break with Felipe II, but that his actions were the response to the abuses committed by their governors. And for that we have to stop for a moment and realize the model of societies in which we find ourselves:completely hierarchical and where the real authority is quasi-divine. Until the French Revolution, the uprising of some vassals, no matter how noble they were, against their lord was an act of rebellion against the established order and, therefore, against nature. In addition, in the other monarchies of Europe, they would not accept it, since their example could be followed by their own subjects. For this reason, both the French, the English, and the German princes support the Orangist cause and defend their interests, but at no time, until well into the 17th century, do they advocate or defend an independence movement. If they do, they could serve as a justification for acts of rebellion by their own vassals. Knowing what he had in his hands, Guillermo was clear that he had to turn it around to sell it to France and England. So, they started up the fan of shit, via printers working 24 hours a day, to denounce the atrocities of the representatives of the Spanish king in Flanders. Logically, the more bloody, the more I support a just cause. Even adding the religious nuance, we also find no justification to protect independence.
“The Spanish Way” – Augusto Ferrer-Dalmau
In fact, the religious wars that took place in France at this same time, the religious conflicts in England since Henry VIII or those of the German princes in the time of Charles I, produced persecutions and revolts, but in no case was a claim claimed. separation or independence, since they would also suppose an attack on the natural lord and political status of the time. In all cases, whatever the final result, issues such as freedom of belief or worship were claimed, but in no case a separation rupture. What do Orangists get out of the religious connotation? Well, because of the fact that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the support of Lutherans, Calvinists and Huguenots. Therefore, why has it always been presented as an independence process? Because that is how it has interested, since the disputes between nobles and monarchs to see who pees further (sometimes reaching civil wars) and religious wars were typical of the time, and would not have made the conflict in Flanders different from those that occurred in the rest of Europe. So, we had to crossdress this process to make it different and thus be able to show how badasses we Spanish were (are we?).
Engraving of the time in which the Duke of Alba "breakfast" children
And knowing how to be at mass and ringing bells, until Felipe II put him in search and capture, William of Orange , an ambitious man of power who knew how to move like no one else in this quagmire (he is considered the father of the Dutch nation), an astute politician (he always knew how to tell everyone what they wanted to hear), a mediocre military man and a true master of modern propaganda. Laugh at the “search, compare and if you find something better, buy it ”. And proof of this, the famous Apology of him , a vehement pamphlet, like any apology, written by the French Huguenot Pierre Loyseleur del Villiers, a refugee in the Court of Orange after escaping from the massacre of Saint Bartholomew in France, to praise, defend and justify what was done and said by the great liberator. And if for this the Spaniards and Felipe II have to be put to fall from a donkey, although curiously he continues to insist that he does not rise up against him, then better than better. Its official presentation was made with the public reading in December 1580, automatically becoming number one in the sales lists, both in the Netherlands and in the rest of European courts. A breath of fresh air against absolutism, a hymn to freedom, an ode to love between peoples, a... a propaganda pamphlet (about how good the Orange one was, that it acted following God's designs to act with justice) and tabloid (about how bad we Spaniards are). Of Philip II, whom he claims to respect as his lord, he accuses him of incest, bigamy and adultery, in addition to poisoning both his son Carlos and his third wife, Isabel de Valois; the Duke of Alba of being an ogre that eats children; he makes the Tercios responsible for the systematic rapes of Flemish maidens and given to all possible (and impossible) unnatural vices and perversions; and the Spaniards, in general, of being devious, treacherous, barbaric, sadistic and greedy people (I think I have not left out any of the adjectives he gives us). The Apology it served to foster a common feeling of solidarity between the different territories that embraced Protestantism in Europe and was a source of inspiration for many other pamphlets and pamphlets. In this way, at the end of the 16th century, that monstrous caricature of the Midday Devil and the Spaniards took shape and was consolidated. As Joseph Pérez points out in The Black Legend , he uses the three arguments used to discredit Spain:
The personal attacks against Felipe II; the fanaticism, intolerance and obscurantism of the Spanish; and the massacre of Indians in America.
Arguments that support and base the original sin of the Spanish, the Black Legend . The American Philip Wayne Powell speaks in the same vein in Tree of Hate , where he lists some basic aspects of the origin of our original sin:
1.- The terror and envy that the Spanish hegemony provoked at the time in the political, economic, religious and military spheres.
2.- The antagonism of those who wanted to dispute its power with Spain in the dominion of the New World:England, Holland, France and Portugal.
3.- The defamation of important figures such as Felipe II or the Duke of Alba, of institutions such as the Inquisition and actions of the Spanish crown such as the colonization of the New World or the sacking of Rome.
4.- The union of all of the above to give rise to discrediting propaganda, creating a negative image of Spain.
5.- A rapid and indiscriminate acceptance of this anti-Spanishness does not only by the people, but what is even worse by the intellectuals.
In short, they made all the necessary conditions for the phenomenon to be generated (fear, envy, hegemony disputes...), the necessary actions to carry it out (use of negative propaganda and defamation of important personalities), and an essential factor for its success:the rapid acceptance of the message or messages by the population “as if it were the word of the Gospel ”, which Requesens said.
Prejudice acquires respectability and becomes practically immune to empirical refutation, thus ensuring its permanence over time (Mª Elvira Roca Barea)
My latest book is now on sale on Amazon: