I hadn't really thought about new world silver like that before. Can you also view it as a symptom of the economy itself expanding, through colonisation?

_{The Political Science Department of the University of Woolloomooloo}

By contrast, the monotheistic Jews of ye olde times were ok with the destruction, but they weren't so big on conversion. Either you were part of the tribe or you weren't and it was a matter of birth, not chosen political or spiritual loyalties.

Just a thought. I don't know how well it works with what you've learned.

I have never been hassled by a Muslim, a Jew or  a Buddhist to embrace Allah, Jehovah or to find my way to enlightenment, in the other hand I am fed up with Christians of all denominations trying to convince me it is always me who is wrong and why I should embrace Jesus, etc, etc.

Hernan Cortes, the conqueror of Mexico, was a complete psychopath, and as a matter of fact was an outlaw when he embarked in the conquest of Mexico, but he was also deeply religious (as most people were back then) and was fully convinced that one of his duties was to convert all the natives. All the Spanish adventurers had a similar mindset and the Catholic Church did precious little to temper their murderous zeal, this provided an undeniable factor that encouraged the conquest at all costs.

If one could have any doubts about how orchestrated and methodical the extermination of native religions was, it should be enough to remember that all symbols of native religions were destroyed, and to make sure the message got across, catholic churches were built, normally in exactly the same places were the old temples used to stand. When Cortes met local people of influence on his way to Tenochtitlan, he first tried to convert them to Christianity and he dealt  later with the practicalities of the conquest. That is how important it was to make the work of god.

I am no religious expert, but I am not sure if any other religions has been so relentless as Christianity in the New World.

There was also an orchestrated propaganda (I can't think of a better word) about the ways of the natives. For example it is often claimed that  the Aztecs used to sacrifice thousands of people at once (propagated legend claims as many as 20000 in one go) but no burial site of such proportions has ever been found. As a matter of fact modern archaeologists have found precious little to suppose that this was common practice, most likely what happened is that the early catholic priests methodically made the religious costumes of the local look in the worst possible light (most surviving Aztec codexes were compiled with the help of catholic priests), exaggerating some barbaric practices (like human sacrifice and self inflicted bleeding) while ignoring others (only nobility was deemed worthy of human sacrifice).

A young Mexican archaeologist whose name escapes me, pointed out that while in Europe it was common practice at the time to finish off injured adversaries in a battlefield during a war, in wars in early Mexico the aim was not necessarily to kill the enemy, and it was completely unworthy to kill injured noblemen, the main aim was to capture some noblemen in order to offer them to the god of the Sun so he will continue to come back each morning. What is more civilized is left as an exercise to the reader.

From the point of view of the Aztecs, Cortes and his men engaging in regular battle was a complete anathema, and they only dared to attack them once they desecrated one of their major religious ceremonies.