Think about the definitions of "conquest" that we discussed in class on Tuesday. Does it make sense to call the Spanish presence and actions in the sixteenth century "conquest"? Please make reference to at least two chapters in Restall to support your ideas.
The definition of conquest debated by the class on Tuesday revealed the difficulty of defining the actions of certain Spaniards in the 16th century as a “conquest.” The Spaniards used force, yet it was more often theatrical force than genocide (Restall 24). Expansion was a dubious concept because administrative control was lacking and motivation for the conquistadors was often personal rather than political loyalty. The conquistadors fought for the “Proof of Merit,” rather than the crown, in ventures “infused” with “the spirit of commercialism” (35). Certainly many natives were willing to shop at the Spanish store, as reflected in the “Songs of the Aztecs” which depict the Spaniards as allies in a native civil war (Restall 46).
ReplyDeleteI would argue that 16th century actions by the Spaniards did not constitute a conquest, though it evolved into one as the Spaniards exerted more total political, administrative and cultural control. The battle lines were not always between the Spaniards and the natives. Many natives assisted Cortés in his battles against the Aztecs. Indeed, Cortés would have been unable to defeat the Aztecs without his native allies (A native could argue that the Tlaxcala would not have defeated the Aztecs but for the Spaniards). The natives were also involved in aiding Spaniards in contests with other Spaniards.
The small number of Spaniards required that they integrate more than conquer to engage in any type of profitable enterprise. It is likely that their small number allowed many natives to see them as useful allies rather than a threat, thus preserving the Spanish presence in Mesoamerica and the Andes. In addition, while the Spaniards ostensibly conquered on behalf of the Crown, they utilized the authority of the Crown not so much to establish authority over the natives but as legal proofs for the benefit of other Spaniards, such as the “founding” of Vera Cruz in 1519 (Restall 20).
We came up with many words to describe conquest, some of which were “territory,” “wealth,” “war,” and “expansion.” Even though these ideas did not come to play in the mythical version of the Spanish conquest some of us knew, in the end all of these ideas did occur in one form or another. The individual men that left Spain, to some unknown land might not have come to rich the pockets of their king but they did seek wealth. Restall calls these men “entrepreneurs” and as in any investor, they seek a profit (35).Gold was a sought item, worthy of wars, not for its status but for its buying powers/ return of profit (22). They did this trough territorial gain as a method of reaching their goal. The “entrepreneurs”’ had to prove that they had reason to continue their expansion. However all of this work was not for the glory of the crown but for personal benefits, such as an encomienda (21). However you look at it many of our ideas of a conquest did occur. In the end the Spanish did stay and profit from this new world.
ReplyDeleteThe Spanish invasions of Latin America were conquests as per the definition we discussed in class. However, as Restall points out in chapter 4, there was a "myth of completion" held by the Spanish. The natives never fully adhered to all the conquistador demands and many of the areas were so vast it is was virtually impossible to maintain control over all the people in these mountainous regions. (Restall, 71) Clearly, many of the natives willingly joined the Spanish in the conquest hoping to secure a better livelylhood for themselves and their people. (Restall, 47) The Spaniards intentionally portrayed the vision that their conquests were under control and serving the crown in order to promote and maintain their own positions. The Spanish did colonize and assimilate the natives of Latin America and in that sense this was a conquest and an end to the Mayans, Aztecs, and Incan people.
ReplyDeleteThere are many words that can be used to describe the Spanish presence and actions in the sixteenth century. Given the various terms and definitions used in class to characterize “conquest,” I think that one can’t simply say that it does or does not make sense to use call the Spanish presence and actions “conquest,” as the answer requires more than a one word response.
ReplyDeleteOn one hand, it would be easy to simply say that Spanish actions during the time could be characterized by using the word “conquest.” For example, in class, we used words such as “wealth,” “power,” and “dominance,” among others to illustrate conquest; such words are exemplified when Restall observes that “Mortality rates were high in the Conquest, but those who survived often saw their fortunes improve dramatically” (53) in that conquistadores were willing to sacrifice their lives to obtain wealth, power and dominance. Additionally, we used terms such as “religion” and “empire” in class. Such terms are justified when Restall writes that religion impacted Spanish ideology to the point that it “made the Discovery and Conquest not only noble and justified but also the duty of the faithful” (68).
On the other hand, one could easily argue that a conquest wasn’t characterized by Spanish actions during this time. In class, we also used terms such as “territorial gain” to characterize conquest, and if we strictly use the terms discussed in class to define conquest, we see that Restall doesn’t agree with us; as much is evident when Restall observes that “Spaniards did not seek to rule natives directly and take over their lands.” (73).
As previously mentioned, it requires more than a simple yes or no when debating whether or not to use “conquest to characterize Spanish actions and presence. I know it seems like I am copping out, but an argument could be made one way or another.
To conquer someone... in my mind anyway, is the process of exerting ones dominance over another. If you use this definition how can one say that the Spanish invasions into the Americas weren't successful? Lets look at some examples... our class come up with a bunch of words to describe "conquest". Words such as "technology, religion, and economics". The Spanish had a vast amount of superiority when it came to technology, especially in the most important technology of all military technology. the other side of this argument is that it took centuries for the Spanish to actually be the dominant military force in the Americas. "The first founders of Buenos Aires in the late 1520s were reduced to cannibalism and the town was not permanently re founded until 1580s,..."(pg71) This quote goes to show that with their military technology it was easy to be successful in fighting but not controlling territory. Even though it took years to dominate the region it was slowly happening. Religion plays a huge factor in this regard of dominance. The language they speak in almost all of the Americas is Spanish not only does this clearly demonstrate the domination of one culture over another it also proves that domination doesn't have to be immediate it can be a gradual process. Once the Spaniards taught the natives their language, then they can really show dominance. The Spaniards were very good at going into a region spreading Spanish and Christian ideology so much so that 500 years later almost everyone in the Americas speaks Spanish and is Catholic. The driving force behind all this technology and religion was the economics. The vast amounts of gold and silver called out to the Spaniards across the Atlantic and the Spaniards responded fully. The only point of towns in the Americas besides the preaching of religion and linguistic ideas was the extraction of resources from the earth. This is proven by the fact that the Spanish brought to the Americas not trappers or colonists or farmers, but blacksmiths, miners, artisans. The Spanish didn't need to hold great tracks of land they only needed parts of the land... the ones riddled with gold and silver and the ability to control the work force or native people around these little gold out posts. In conclusion even though the Spanish didn't come into the Americas win a couple battles and take over all of the continent doesn't mean the Spanish didn't conquer. It means they set a ground work for conquering that was probably better; not only did they extract vast amounts of precious metals they systematically changed the ideology, religion, and customs of a people that greatly outnumbered them. The best way to wage war is to get your enemies to believe in what your preaching which is exactly what the Spaniards did. "Natives saw themselves as much subject to their own lords as any distant Spaniards. In their own ways they were both correct and mistaken." (pg76)
ReplyDeleteAs defined in class, the word “conquest” refers to the act or process of conquering; especially a territory appropriated through force. I would argue that it does make sense to call the Iberian presence and actions in the new world a “Conquest.” One only has to read the journals of Bartolomé De Las Casas to conclude that indeed the Conquistadors were a handful of savages that used every method of cruelty against the indigenous in order to steal their riches and land. De Las Casas describes Iberian presence in the Caribbean, 40 years after its discovery, to be “like ravening beasts, killing terrorizing, afflicting, torturing, and destroying the native peoples.” He goes on describing each island to have been deserted, either because in the previous 40 years all the natives “were slain or died after being taken to captivity and brought to the island of Hispaniola to be sold as slaves.”
ReplyDeleteAlthough Matthew Restall barely mentions De Las Casas in his Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest, he does admit that one of the “aspects of Conquest procedure was the use of display violence” which included not only the “public seizure of native rulers” but also the routinely kidnapping of hostages in return for ransoms (24-25). In chapter 3, he makes it clear however that it was not just the Europeans who made this “Conquest” possible, they had helped of other Native allies; in the Yucatan peninsula, the Spanish alongside the Tlaxcalans took down the Mexica and in Peru if were not for the rivalry among the two Inca brothers Atahualpa and Huascar, neither Cortez or Pizarro would have been known as conquistadors. They were the spark that initiated the civil wars that destroyed two grand empires.
Therefore, as stated previously, Iberian presence and violent actions in the New World should be referred as a “conquest.”
Judging by the definitions discussed in class, as well as evidence from Restall’s works, it is undeniable that Spain’s activities in the Americas during the 16th century were an embodiment of uninhibited conquest. From the beginning the goal remained the same for the Spanish and differed little from imperialist European practices that were common during this time period in many parts of the globe such as India, Africa, and the Far East. They sought to completely break local authority to their will and exploit the economy, resources, and manpower to the fullest extent possible.
ReplyDeleteMost important for the leader of a Conquistador party was securing a governorship. By proving that an area had potential for exploitation, explorers hoped to be bestowed with a blessing of governorship of the area from their liege. This governorship was a symbol of status and position and gave permission to rule the area in question on behalf of the monarch, and entitlement to all the lands assets both human and material (Restall 22.). This shows that the chief focus above all else was exploitation on as massive a scale as possible with complete disregard for the wishes and representation of the local populous which effectively symbolizes conquest.
Another example of these activities constituting conquest is in the awarding of encomiendas and other dividends. The Spanish explorers endured the journey for no formally agreed upon fare or compensation. If one was not wealthy or prominent enough to seek governorship the next best reward for your services was to be awarded an encomienda or native labor and/or any plunder that may have been acquired during initial exploration and conflict. Being a encomendero entitled you to taxing the native population as well as managing the land on which they lived and worked. (Restall 35.) This practice shows that the goal of making such a journey as a Conquistador was to win ones fortune by taking it from the local populous and not by being paid formally by your own superiors.
Both these oppressive practices show that Spain’s motives in the Americas were purely selfish and most definitely constituted conquest. They acted in complete disregard for the local population,removed their leaders, and used whatever means necessary to maintain control over them. Their wealth and advancement came not from the men who sponsored the expeditions, but from exploitation of the people whom they and conquered.