I am curious as to other's opinions on Chapter 7: The Myth of Superiority. Restall attempts to complicate the five common interpretations of Spanish superiority by presenting other factors, such as disease, that had no obvious origin in superior Spanish culture. I find, however, that Restall's repudiation of the myth of superiority subtly reinforces it. Perhaps I am misinterpreting it and would appreciate additional input.
Restall lists the myth of Spanish superiority as taking one of five common interpretations:
1) God's favor on the Spaniards expressed through miracles as they carry out His divine plan of civilization and conversion.
2) Native superstition and betrayal by their leadership weakened the Mexica and others.
3) The native cultures were inadequate culturally and spiritually to resist the Spaniards (the enlightened vs. the superstitious).
4) The Spanish were superior communicators who more astutely overcame the language gap.
5) The Spaniards possessed superior weaponry.
Restall then lists five factors that he believes problematize and debunk the five interpretations. It seems that the five factors Restall lists, taken in toto, reinforce the myth of superiority, at least in the way Restall phrases them.
1) Disease. Spaniards, and Europeans in general, introduce disease into the virgin environment of the Americas. Fortunately for the Spaniards, their superior immune systems after years of exposure due to greater globalization leaves them standing while the natives succumb.
2) Native "disunity." Restall actually uses this phrase on Page 141. The Spaniards greater unity and sense of purpose overcomes the native inability to see past their differences and make common cause. I agree that the natives utilized the Spaniards in the greater American political arena. I am more taking issue with Restall's use of the word "disunity," which implies failure of some sort.
3) Spanish swords. This would seem to confirm Number 5 listed above, not deny it.
4) What Restall termed the "culture of war" (p. 144). The religious and ceremonial aspects of native war culture placed them at a disadvantage in fighting the Spaniards. Restall uses the specific example of the inability to conduct surprise attacks due to elaborate pre-combat rituals.
5) Restall places the Spanish "conquest" within the greater context of the global phenomenon of expansion and empire building occurring at the the time. Whatever the cause, it would seem that the Spaniards succeeded, making them the "superior" band of warriors.
The five factors that Restall lists to explain the Spanish conquest may at first appear to be falling into the myths that he is trying to disprove. However, upon further inspection it is possible to see that is not the case. For instance, one myth is that the Spanish possessed superior weapons, such as guns, cannons, steel swords, horses and war dogs, which gave them an advantage over the Native Americans. Even though the Spanish weapons were more modern in design, they did not necessarily provide an advantage in the conquest. For example, both the guns and cannons relied on dry gun powder. However, in the tropical climate the powder was frequently exposed to moisture and was therefore useless. Even if the guns operated correctly, they could not fire as rapidly as the Natives’ bow and arrows. After each firing, the guns had to be reloaded with powder which was cumbersome and slow. Restall indicated that the Spaniards would resort to using the gun as a club or abandoning it for a sword. Additionally, the cannons were bulky, cumbersome and difficult to move without roads or navigable rivers. The Spanish steel swords were indeed more durable, sharper and longer than most hand held weapons of the Natives. However, they provided only a slight advantage which by itself cannot account for the Spanish victory. As Restall indicated there must be other factors such as diseases, and native “disunity” to account for their victory.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the five factors are not myths that Restall is trying to disprove; however, I also feel that Restall wasn't trying to indicate that any given factor gave the Spanish Conquest its ultimate outcome. Rather, it was the combination of the five factors that allowed it to materialize.
ReplyDeleteFor example, I may be misinterpreting your views, but it's my understanding that you believe that although Spanish steel was important, it didn’t play as critical a factor in victory compared to disease and disunity. If Restall believed that Spanish steel was only a slight advantage, I don’t think he would have said of the Spanish sword that “it alone was worth than a horse, a gun, and a mastiff put together.” (143). Restall believes that all five factors contributed in one way or another to eventual Spanish victory. For instance, the steel sword, the third factor listed by Restall, could be used during surprise attacks the Spanish would launch on unsuspecting natives, part of the 4th factor Restall lists, the culture of war. Although Restall gives priority to the first three factors that contributed to the Conquest’s outcome, he also notes that all five ultimately conglomerate to produce the ultimate outcomes of the “Conquest.”
I’m definitely not trying to argue your points; in fact, I think that the only part of your argument that I disagree with is the discrediting of one given factor for the enhancement of another. Ultimately, the five factors aren’t myths that Restall is attempting to disprove, they’re tools used by Restall to debunk other myths.
Thanks for the taking the time to reply. I really appreciate the input!
ReplyDelete