Conquest – U.S. to 1877

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

The Spanish conquest of Alta California in the 1760‘s- 1780‘s was the most interesting aspect of Chapter 19 in American Colonies. What first struck me was that the Spanish had explored the region both in the 1540’s and early in the 17th century. They had decided that the land was not bountiful enough to be considered worthy of conquest and missions (p. 456-457). In fact, they were only motivated to claim the land as theirs after hearing reports that the Russians and British were looking to make their own colonies there. This is important because it shows Spain’s true motivation in claiming the land. It was less about conversion of natives and spreading Catholicism, and more about competition with other foreign powers and protecting their land in Mexico. Their complete lack of knowledge about the land they were attempting to colonize is also noteworthy. According to Taylor, the Spanish thought of Alta California as undeveloped wilderness and they thought of the natives who lived there as “gente sin razon (people without reason” (p. 460). In reality, the natives had positively “reshaped and enhanced” (p.455) the environment and the Spaniard’s conquest and assimilation of natives proved to negatively affect hunting and plant and tree growth.

In the grand scheme, it could be argued that a lot of these smaller details Taylor provides about Spanish conquest in Alta California aren’t that important. It seems as if Taylor goes out of his way to provide extra evidence of Spanish ignorance and arrogance when they conquered new lands. He also shares examples of shocking brutality from Spanish soldiers and commanders towards the Natives. This section of the chapter, which to me seemed like a scathing criticism of Spanish conquest tactics, is consistent with how Taylor describes them throughout this book.

In this blogpost (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/the-russians-are-coming-the-russians-are-coming-and-the-spanish-missionaries-too/), the author writes in more detail about how unfavorable life was for Natives after they were colonized and how they were essentially turned into slaves, even though the primary goal of colonization, according to the Spaniards, was conversion. While most, if not all European Nations who colonized in the New World were oppressive and nasty towards native people who already lived there when they arrived, it seems as thought the Spanish were far more blatantly uncivil and indecent in how they did things. I think Taylor and @jelaws would echo this point.

In Chapter 3, Taylor demystifies the “Black Legend” of Spanish cruelty by highlighting both the atrocities and developments of Spanish conquest—a lucrative venture for bullish entrepreneurs and an onerous governance for the Spanish crown. Continuing his comparative perspective, Taylor examines the Spanish conquest through lens of the Native peoples as well as the Spanish. I, however, found his description of the Spanish motives especially interesting. He notes that while Spanish colonization was “a private enterprise . . . in the pursuit of profit,” it also served to extend the control of the Spanish crown and Catholic church by means of the requerimento (57). Though driven by seemingly disparate interests, the Spanish conquerers—in the Taylor’s presentation, at least—used their separate interests as motives and justifications for the atrocities of their conquests, particularly at Tenochtitlán. Describing Cortes’ visit to the enchanting city—I say “enchanting” because of Bernal Diaz’s description of it—Taylor writes that the Spanish explorers were “inflamed [with] desire to conquer, plunder” (53). Yet, they abhorred the gruesome rituals and idolatry of the Aztecs. So they employed their religious duty ‘to give light to those . . . in darkness’ as justification to eclipse the Aztec culture and society with their own customs (58). Perhaps no event described in Chapter 3 better reflects the Spanish cultural conquest than the construction of the cathedral in Mexico City. Tenochtitlán’s ruins became the cornerstones of a Christian temple, born on the backs of its own people.

I find it interesting that among the list of Spanish motives for conquest Taylor excludes racial prejudice. Granted, Taylor states in Chapter 5 that Europeans perceived the Native peoples as “socially and culturally inferior” rather than racially unequal (107). But I find it hard to believe that the confrontation of two foreign, ethnically homogenous groups would not provoke racial prejudice, although admittedly my this assertion is influenced by modern instances of racism.

Regardless, I think there is a better explanation for Taylor’s exclusion of racism in his list of Spanish motives. In her post last week, Caitlin noted Taylor’s argument for colonial social-hierarchy as the origin of racism in America. Racial oppression, she stated, was “created through the colonial process,” not pre-meditated. With this view in mind, Taylor’s description makes sense. As the Native peoples were assimilated—or coerced, depending on your view—into the Spanish colonies, they were exploited and worked on haciendas as sharecroppers. And as Taylor’s argument would suggest, a racial hierarchy (castas) evolved from the social hierarchy, with Natives and African slaves at the bottom and whiter peoples towards the top. So, whether an omission for the sake of his argument or a fine example of racism evolving out of classism, the absence of racial qualifications for the Spanish conquest seems best explained by Taylor’s previous argument. I think Caitlin would agree, but I look forward to hearing her response.

On a different note, we spent much of class last Thursday discussing common words and phrases used when describing the history of the American Native peoples. Many words—like “village,” as opposed to “city”—we concluded, fail to accurately convey the complexity and sophistication of Native civilization and culture. In fact, some words reflect cultural ignorance more than just historical inaccuracy. I think this recent blog is especially relevant to that conversation:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/09/02/217295339/the-history-behind-the-phrase-dont-be-an-indian-giver

Tag: Conquest

Blog Post #5- Spanish Brutality In the West

American Colonies, Chapter 3: “Conquest and Race in New Spain”