I often wondered how small groups of Spanish conquistadors could defeat the most powerful New World empires within months, or why the Natives were so naive that they actually thought the conquistadors were gods...
OK, here's a clue, blanquito. It didn't happen that way...
Mathew Restall tells the story in "Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest". Apart from some unfortunate nods to postmodernism in the introduction, the book is quite good and really does "deconstruct" the pervasive tall tales about the Spanish conquista.
The book speaks for itself, but here are some of the highlights.
Columbus wasn't a lone genius in a hostile and uncomprehending world. Actually, he was one of many players in a process of exploration and conquest that was much larger than himself. Indeed, he might just have been lucky. The cult of Columbus is mostly modern, driven by Italian and Irish immigrants in the United States. The Admiral of the Ocean Sea wasn't even on bad terms with Amerigo Vespucci!
Cortes and the conquistadors defeated the mighty Mexica (Aztec) Empire with the aid of Native warriors. Their exact number is unknown. Figures range from 6,000 to 100,000 or even 200,000. Cortes took the lead in what could almost be seen as a Native civil war. Nor was Cortes unique in this regard. It was standard Spanish policy to recruit Native allies. One of the main reasons why the Conquest was succesful was Native disunity. The Inca Empire fell for the same reason.
Did the "Indians" see the Whites as gods? Probably not. The story of how Moctezuma mistook Cortes for Quetzalcoatl is Fransiscan propaganda. And while its true that Moctezuma's speech at his first meeting with Cortes sounded extremely deferential ("my empire belongs to you now"), this was simply standard diplomatic protocol among the Aztecs. Restall also points out that the definition of "god" was much broader in the New World cultures than among Christian monotheists. The Native rulers themselves were "gods". Jealous gods with no intention of sharing power...
On one point, the standard narrative is true. The Americas did experience a demographic collapse due to Old World disease. Tenochtitlan fell in large part because a smallpox epidemic decimated the city's defenders. Smallpox reached Peru even before the conquistadors did. Despite the deadly epidemics, Native culture in Mesoamerica and the Andes proved remarkably resilient. Only the first phase of the Conquest was swift and dramatic. It took centuries before the Spanish had really "pacified" their colonies. The Spanish and various Native elite groups often interacted with each other in complex ways. The "Indians" didn't really disappear. They simply adapted to the new conditions.
Even details in the standard narrative are bunk. No, the Natives weren't afraid of horses. Gunpowder was mostly useless in the tropical climate. The Spanish *did* have superior weapons, though: their excellent steel swords! And while the Spanish were, of course, brutal conquerors, they were hardly irrational. Their seemingly crazy "thirst for gold" was a rational economic activity, since gold was indeed the most important currency in early modern Europe...
The author ends by pointing out that the Conquista, despite everything, wasn't an absolutely unique or uniquely important event in world history. In the bigger scheme of things, it was part of a global process of late medieval and early modern empire-building, which started with the Russians and Ottomans, and which even included the Aztecs and the Incas themselves. Their empires, after all, were established during the same period. Even in Europe, the Spanish were late-comers, Portugal being the original European global power during the period in question. The author believes that this phase of globalized conquest and food control is still ongoing...
An interesting perspective!
Recommended.
No comments:
Post a Comment