How do Restall and Conrad and Demarest relate (or not relate) to each other? Do they agree or disagree on certain points, in tone, or in other ways? Use examples to support your ideas.
As Conrad and Demarest wrote, religion plays an imperative role in the rise and fall of the Natives. Conrad and Demarest expand on human sacrifices, religious beliefs, burial process and specifically their devotion to the nonliving. In Restall’s chapter 6 “The Indians are Coming to an End”, Restall indicates that the Spaniards viewed the Natives as “monsters” or non-humane because they lacked attributes of humanity due to religion and superstition. The Natives were depicted as ‘savages’ and ‘wild beasts’ in Restall’s novel; Conrad and Demarest were able to explain the root of these perceptions, which made Conrad and Demarest relate to Restall. Conrad and Demarest indicate the importance of The Sun God, Huizilipochtti to the Natives. The Native’s devotion to their Sun God caused them to perform human sacrifices along with cannibalism. This can be easily related to Restall’s idea of why the Spaniards viewed the Natives as barbaric and non-humane.
Along with the Incas Conrad and Demarest show the importance of a deceived individual and how natives still contributed and attended to the dead. Conrad and Demarest state, “Thereafter his descendants returned to his tomb at intervals to renew offerings of food, drink and cloth” (Pg.102). Conrad and Demarest at the same time do not relate to Restall’s description and view of the Natives. Conrad and Demarest are able to explain their actions thoroughly through the Native’s point of views rather than the Spaniards. Conrad and Demarest are able to justify in detail why they act and do what they do. In Hinduism when one tries to wake the Gods they often do so through offerings as well. Hindus feed the Gods raisin and fruits, lit up incense for the Gods sense of smell, decorate their surroundings with flowers. Their contribution to the nonliving is similar to the Incas in this sense, which does not portray the Inca Natives as barbaric as Restall does.
While I agree with you about what you said in your first paragraph, about the complexity and alien rituals that the Natives performed and which the Spanish viewed led to a misunderstanding on the part of the Spaniards, I don’t necessarily agree that Restall described the Natives as barbaric, unless I misunderstood what you meant in your concluding statement. Anyone witnessing human sacrifice would be appalled, but to witness it in a foreign land populated by exotic people must have added to the disgust the Spanish felt for the act. Although personally I think that ritual human sacrifice at first must have been met with fear to the Spaniards, seeing as they were strangers and being so far from home might have thought that they too would be sacrificed. Adding to the confusion on behalf of the Spanish was the complexities of the gods in the religions of the indigenous populations. Conrad and Demarest make mention of the complexities by describing the overlapping roles of the Incan gods which depended on the ritual being performed,(p.100). The Spanish viewed the religion of the indigenous populations similar to the religions of the different polytheistic cultures that existed in the old world. Since the religion of the Spanish is monotheistic then they would naturally see the indigenous religions as a danger to their own. Although the natives would have viewed Christianity itself as a complex religion with the different tiers that create the structure of the religion, which included angels, saints, the Holy Spirit, God, and in Catholicism the Pope himself which is viewed as the human representative of God.
Restall’s Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest in comparison with Conrand and Demarest’s Religion and Empire could not be more far from relatable. Restall’s writing, just like its title, greatly emphasizes the events that took place during the conquest of the Americas while Religion and Empire focuses on the livelihood of the pre-Columbian world (7). Although both books are set on the same stages, the times are different and therefore so are sources used to write each of them. Restall challenges the myths of the Spanish conquest using sources such as testimonies from witnesses like Bernal Diaz and Gómara along with modern research from his contemporaries. It would be unfair to condemn these as unreliable resources, however, it is clear that most of the information comes straight from those wrote the history, the winners, in this case the Europeans. On the other hand, Religion and Empire takes stage in pre-Columbian time. Although some of the sources used were also testimonial, extracted from the Spanish chronicles, the works of Mesoamerican and Andean authors were also taken into consideration, in addition to administrative records and archeological research (5). These last two are resources that show facts and detailed data free of bias, and that’s exactly how Comrad and Deamrest present it. Neither one of the books is better that the other, it is clear that both are meant to educate and they do so it their own great manner, one is simply more informative and less opinionated the other.
Even though Restall's book is about debunking the miss perceptions of the Spanish Conquest and Religion and Empire primarily pertains to pre-Columbian political structure and the role of religion in the forming of those structures, I believe the books relate in the way they present their findings and what they aim to accomplish with the books. In the book religion and empire Conrad and Demarest are looking to prove that religion can be the causing factor in political and cultural change which according to them in the first chapter has been something that many historians have thought to be an untrue concept. They take many sources and archeological evidence that many historians have commented on and reviewed and use them as evidence to the prove the point that they are trying to make. Restall did the same thing in his book to disprove the many myths that many previous historians had published and believed the events that took palce during the Spanish conquest. Though the two books are set in the same stage but are focused on two different views their tone and goals I think are very relatable. The authors are trying to break ground by placing large historical events in a new light. The main thing were these two books are the most non relatable is the way the tone is directed towards the natives. In Restalls book the natives are painting as a very rich complex culture where the tone from Conrad and Demarest is much more negative towards the natives. They continually refer to them as savages and continually downplay any significant strides they made politically or in their empire by trying to support the point that because of religious ideology they were some what forced to expand and conquer.
I agree and disagree with some of your points. I think that ultimately both books do share some similarities and differences; however, I don’t think that a deviation between the two books is in the treatment of the natives by the authors. I don’t think it is fair to say that Conrad and Demarest downplayed the natives’ intuition. While saying that religious ideology was a driving force in expansion of territory is fair, saying it was the only driving force isn't. For example, Conrad and Demarest point out that regarding Inca expansion, “Military expansionism was to provide wealth for some and economic security for all, political advancement for the state’s leadership, social mobility for commoners, and an honored afterlife for deserving individuals” (125). Although split inheritance provided the Inca’s ruling class with a reason to expand, commoners and those seeking social mobility didn't join in the expansion bandwagon just because they were following religious ideology, they were doing it so that they may personally get something out of it. I can’t argue that Restall has high opinion of native society, as evident when he states that “native cultures were neither barbarous nor idyllic, but as civilized and imperfect as European cultures of the time” (102). However, it’s unfair to say that Conrad and Demarest had a generally negative tone towards the natives and thought of them as savages when one reads near the beginning of the book the credit they give Teotihuacan, the first urban center in Mesoamerica (13): “Teotihuacan’s commercial and probably even political, influence was felt as far away as the Maya centers of the jungles of northern Guatemala” (13).
I can agree with you on how the books are set on the same stage but discuss different time periods and in some ways focus on different topics. Restall’s main focus was the seven myths that formed many people’s depiction of the Conquest. Here he targeted each of the myths while providing us with the testimonies of people who were present during the Conquest. He also uses the scholarly research from historians of present-day time. Conrad and Demarest focus on the great empires of the Aztec and the Inca. Although they use some scholarly research and testimonies, they mainly use Mesoamerican archaeology to educate us on these empires. The difference between these two books is that Restall presents us detail from the perspective of the European whereas Conrad and Demarest focus on the natives. As far as I have read in Religion and Empire, we don’t see much of the Spanish conquistadors except towards the end of the empires. Considering this book is set in pre-Columbian times, it makes sense why we are being informed of the empires before the Spanish came in. Overall, I think both books inform us from two different perspectives which give us much more knowledge on the entire Spanish conquest. We can see the side from the Spanish conquistadors, the side from some of the native empires, and also targeting the myths that created the history told today. Altogether we can have a better understanding of this era.
I agree that both books do share a common topic, that of explaining the truth of the “Spanish conquest” that is usually ignored. However, I don’t think that Restall is writing in such a biased view. His chapter on “The Indians are coming to an end” gives a view on the native perspective and gives examples of how previous views pushed on this image of weak natives. On page 104 Restall says that the “natives were no more naturally malleable than were Spaniards.” I thought Restall did a good job bringing down the high pedestal Westerners had viewed the conquest, such as removing the myth that the natives saw them as Gods. Of course it is impossible to write anything without bias, but this also included Conrad and Demarest. They like archaeology and therefore spend a lot of time discussing this. However just because it is physical does not mean they are not looking at the objects with their interpretations, focusing one aspect over another. Restall’s book was on western myths regarding the conquest, so he focused on the western views. Religion and Empire The dynamics of Aztec and Inca expansion has a different focus than Restall’s, which is why I think you get more of a native perspective. Either way I agree that both these books are great at their objective, which is to educate.
In many ways Restall and Conrad and Demarest are agreeing but their venues to do so are different. Restall sought to dispel many of the myths that were created by the Spanish, the natives, and other foreign powers for religious and political reasons. Conrad and Demarest focus is primarily on the native alliances, cultural changes, and religious ideologies that were transpiring prior to the Spanish arrival.
Restall and Conrad and Demarest are both dispelling the myth that the natives were victims, but again they choose different venues to make their points. For example, Restall's chapter titled the Invisible Warriors talks about the native alliances with Cortes when he says "Tlaxcalans rightly judged, with Spanish assistance they would be able to destroy the Mexica empire and its capital city". (47) This indicated as Restall goes onto to say that Cortes had approximately 200, 000 native allies during the conquest who were willing to fight against other natives.
Conrad and Demarest lay the foundation for the reasons the natives would eventually allign themselves with Cortes. First they discuss how their legends would vary from tribe to tribe and usually for reasons so that the tribe telling the story could link themselves directly back to the gods and have an ancestral tie that could link them to succession of power.(16) Conrad and Demarest stated that the "elite obsession with a legitimizing ancestry" helped facilitate "increasing militarism and human sacrifice".(18) These cultural and religious changes primed the natives for descent and rebellion from the Mexica and Cortes' arrival was a method by which the natives could achieve their goals.
So, again I do believe that the authors agree in many ways but choose different paths in dispelling many of the things that we think we know about the Spanish Conquest. They both agree that the Spanish didn't conquer the natives alone, the natives were not victims, and accounts from both that natives and Spanish were often self-aggrandizing and distorted for both political and religious reasons.
Vinetta Paul, I agree with your comment that both books pursue the same aspect, yet, they use a different approach to convince readers. You summarize that Restall has a more counter-approach to what many scholars have learned about the myths that were created by the Spanish, the natives, and other foreign powers for either religious and/or political pursuit. While Conrad and Demarest focuses on the native alliances, cultural changes, and religious ideologies that were descending prior to the Spanish arrival. I like your reference to the chapter, “Invisible Warriors,” when the indigenous made alliances with Cortes: “Tlaxcalans rightly judged, with Spanish assistance they would be able to destroy the Mexica Empire and its capital city (47) As you have stated that, it was Restall’s intention to disprove any myths that Cortes did not have allies, but rather, you mention that “he had approximately 200,000 native allies during the conquest who were willing to fight against other natives.” I felt that your quote was spot on, that it truly trumps the Black Legend, which was one of the main focal points that Restall tried to argue.
You then shift gears into Conrad and Demarest’s argument that the indigenous would eventually become allies with Cortes. You mention that Conrad and Demarest discusses how the indigenous would have legends that would vary from tribe to tribe, which was very necessary to add since both authors wrote about it in the early chapters. This part I would agree with you that it was necessary, however, I would cite pages 67-70 since it refers to the decline of the Aztec Empire.
But overall, I think that you brought up great examples which would make for a strong research/comparative type paper.
Vinetta, I believe you hit the nail on the head when you stated that "Conrad and Demarest lay the foundation for the reasons the natives would eventually align themselves with Cortes" and argue that that authors are discussing similar themes from different angles.
Restall does not take us back past the point of Spanish arrival while Conrad and Demarest do not take us forward past the same point, at least through the first two chapters. Conrad and Demarest thus serve as the necessary "foundation" for Restall's work. They provide the framework for why Restall's myths are indeed myths.
As you pointed out, a large myth was of Spanish superiority, but it is Conrad and Demarest who provide the picture of native relations that made alliances with Cortes possible and desirable. The myth of exceptional men is further dispelled when Conrad and Demarest illustrate the weakness of the Mexica and Inca empires upon Spanish arrival. Much like the Mexica and Inca had done at the moment of their rise, the Spaniards took advantage of the weakness of the elder partner in the existing empirical arrangement.
As Conrad and Demarest discuss the rise of the American empires and their ability to develop alliances and administrative control over large areas, the myth of miscommunication also goes by the wayside. These were groups accustomed to interacting with different cultures and languages and building tributary and trade systems. Yes, they were in some ways similar in religious and language traits, but even La Malinche had to learn Yucatec Maya to survive.
Most importantly, which is a point you implicitly make, is that Conrad and Demarest show how the Spaniards fit into the existing political arrangements of the Americas, which Restall merely tells us happened. In this way, Restall serves as a fun introduction to the topic, showing why the image of the Spaniards is false. Conrad and Demarest provide an image of the natives that is accurate and thus undergirds Restall's claims.
Both Conrad and Demarest and Restall express ideas that the fall of the Aztec and Incan Empires was not due to the outright superiority of the Spanish colonists, but, to more complex sets of events. For Conrad and Demarest the main contributor to the downfall of the Aztec and Incan Empire was caused by several factors to include the overextension of the empires in a pursuit to increase the land holdings and to increase the tax base. Conrad and Demarest claim that the expansion of the both empires was attributed to the manipulation of the state religions by the elites in both societies after the initial establishment of their hegemonic status in their particular regions, and by do so were able to create a demand for resources that could only be met by continuing to increase the borders of their empires.
Restall does not limit his explanation on the collapse of the Aztec and Incan Empires to just one topic, but seeks out to debunk the myths that have developed over the last centuries. Restall’s explanation for the collapse of the two Indigenous empires includes the idea that the conquest of both empires was assisted by regional conflicts that the Spanish were able to take advantage of. Conrad and Demarest offer a better explanation by concluding that the pressures to increase the borders of the empires would force the Aztec and the Inca to engage with indigenous opponents that they would be incapable of defeating. This inability to defeat their regional opponents would leave the Aztecs and the Incas with enemies that would be more than willing to fight alongside the Spanish.
Spanish conquest and Incan conquest had some similarities. Although their philosophy was different in many aspects, both cultures felt that it was necessary to expand in the name of preserving their individual ways. Although different, both Spain and the Incas were both able to use the excuse of religion as reasons to expand. According to Conrad and Demarest, “Military expansionism was to provide wealth for some and economic security for all…”(125) I feel that this is a similar claim that the Spanish used for coming over and trying to expand on the Americas. With a growing population that needed room to expand, the Incas experienced a very similar experience of mid 15th century imperialism. This form of imperialism, being defined from your religious beliefs, had to do with the spread of cultural factors. One specific example that Conrad and Demarest specifically address is the Inca’s ability to quickly forge towns after settling in a new area, and design it to be similar to their home villages. Not only did this increase the spread of their influence, but it also brought up a source of revenue for the Incas. Typically, panaquas (Incan interest groups in wanting to expand) were the ones not only leading this charge on the battlefield, but also for the most personal interest. Isn’t it interesting that we see the similar ideals in Incan society as the Spanish? In both societies, we see “nobles” buying their status, taking power in the new lands conquered, and maintaining it through the continuous expansion. Overall, I see very similar references between the two books.
In Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest by Matthew Restall the reader is exposed to the truths behind many of the historical myths that surround the Spanish Conquest. In Religion and Empire by Conrad and Demarest, we see the authors engaging the reader by explaining the multifaceted Aztec culture and the shifts that society experienced with a focus on political and societal structure.
When one takes into consideration the subject matter explored by both books one can begin to understand and examine that although they focus on the Aztec empire and Spanish, they approach and discuss different aspects of the two empires. Restall focuses on a broader view and has its focal point after the fall of the Aztec Empire and the Spanish “conquest”. He then discusses the myths that have followed the history of that point in time. While Restall focuses on the myths that surround the Aztec Empire and Spanish “conquest”, Conrad and Demarest focus on the events that led to the Spanish “conquest”. Although it is important to point out that, both books try to dispel some of the preconceived notions of that time period. Another imperative point that should be highlighted is that the authors agree that there were other factors that contributed to the demise of the Aztec Empire than just the Spanish’s arrival. Moreover, the tone of the books and the way they investigated the subject matter differ slightly. Demarest and Conrad are archeologist and rely on their archeological research while Restall relies more on primary and secondary historical sources.
In all both books have their similarities and differences, but I think that reading these two books together help someone interested in this point in history understand more about the culture and past of the Aztec and Spanish.
In Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest by Matthew Restall the reader is exposed to the truths behind many of the historical myths that surround the Spanish Conquest. In Religion and Empire by Conrad and Demarest, we see the authors engaging the reader by explaining the multifaceted Aztec culture and the shifts that society experienced with a focus on political and societal structure.
When one takes into consideration the subject matter explored by both books one can begin to understand and examine that although they focus on the Aztec empire and Spanish, they approach and discuss different aspects of the two empires. Restall focuses on a broader view and has its focal point after the fall of the Aztec Empire and the Spanish “conquest”. He then discusses the myths that have followed the history of that point in time. While Restall focuses on the myths that surround the Aztec Empire and Spanish “conquest”, Conrad and Demarest focus on the events that led to the Spanish “conquest”. Although it is important to point out that, both books try to dispel some of the preconceived notions of that time period. Another imperative point that should be highlighted is that the authors agree that there were other factors that contributed to the demise of the Aztec Empire than just the Spanish’s arrival. Moreover, the tone of the books and the way they investigated the subject matter differ slightly. Demarest and Conrad are archeologist and rely on their archeological research while Restall relies more on primary and secondary historical sources.
In all both books have their similarities and differences, but I think that reading these two books together help someone interested in this point in history understand more about the culture and past of the Aztec and Spanish.
Religion and Empire tries to put together the history of the Aztecs and Inca in a pre-Columbian setting by Archeology and actual evidence. Seven myths of the Spanish conquest use written documents by the Spaniards and stories told by the natives. Just because both books are telling different times of history and a different way of getting facts to best tell the history Pre-columbian and the Spanish conquest doest not mean that they don't relate. One must understand Pre-Columbian history to understand the Native American position at the time of the Spaniard conquest. In Religion and Empire Conrad and Demarest explain the Pre-colombian history has been dated back to 2,500 B.C (87). Showing that before the Inca's took power there where many other civilazations that were in power before the Incas. It shows the history of the civilizations the conflicts that each civilization had with each other. When the Spaniards came it was perfect timing because the Incas were in a middle of a civil war. Conrad and Demarest also shows the religions and how they were similar and different in each civilization and the impact the religion played in their history. One could say that Demarest and Conrad is a bit more reliable evidence of history becuase their findings are based on Archeological work.
Rendall starts where Conrad and Demarest left off. Rendall's telling of the spanish conquest mostly consists of written documents by the Spaniards. One could say that it doesn't make good evidence of the story of the Spanish conquest because you are only getting one side of the story in this case the Spaniards. I believe both books are definitely relate because one must understand Pre-columbian history to understand the Spanish Conquest of the Incas and Aztecs.
Restall and Conrad and Demarest do relate and agree on the reasons for which the Indian's empires were in decline even though they approach the situations differently. Restall focuses on diminishing the ideas of other people who believed that the Spaniards were the ones who were accredited for the fall of the Indian empires. Restall states that the civil wars between the Indians, and diseases were the main reasons for the fall of the Indian empires. It wasn't just a few Spaniards taking over hundreds of Indians with the use of their unseen before horses or war gear. Conrad and Demarest also agree on the fact that the Spaniards weren't the ones to give full credit for the fall of the empires but Conrad and Demarest approach this theory differently. Conrad and Demarest accredit the fall of the Indian empires to the huge amounts of human sacrifices made to the gods by all empires. In having the sacrifices, the empire's number of people decreased significantly leaving the empires with less members at a time. There was also need for enemy sacrifices, which meant that people had to be captured during the times of war in order to have a successful sacrifice. This also lowered the amounts of populations in all the empires, thus making it easier for the Spaniards to simply go in and take over. Therefore, I believe that Restall and Conrad and Demarest both agreed on the fact that the Spaniards weren't the only reason as to why the Indian tribes declined.
The history of the conquest of America was full of myths. Many questions such as Why myths are recurrent and have not been revalued or reread? Restall wanted to clarify all these myths for better understanding of the processes of the conquest. He structures the work into seven chapters where in each one undo a minor myths interrelated with each other; even the truths rediscovered in the analysis of one of them, serves to remove another. In his book, Restall takes a revisionist history from a critical perspective, subject to the sources that have shaped our vision of the conquest to rational criticism. Also, this leads to think that Restall’s book is not aimed at the community of historians, but the general public. But the merit is in Restall’s proposal on sources of conquest. It is important to make an extensive and thorough reading of them, never assume anything and always focus on the use of words. After reading the book it is clear that colonization which was directed by Castilian men who came from lower social strata in search of fortune in the form of royal favor, but was made by the Indians and black slaves, and it was not completed until after the independence of the republics. Conrad and Demarest present their view differently, focusing on expansionism and religion in particular ways. Religion plays a very important role and it was linked to the economic, political and social system in both Inca and Aztec empires. They give us an approach to those prominent cultures from its beginnings to its decline. During the Aztec Empire ideological factors originated internal cultural tensions, economic and political impossible to solve. The problems reached a critical situation in less than a century; the Spanish took advantage of a state that was self-destructed inside. It was precisely this religious ideology of expansionism Aztec engine and in the same way its irremediable decay. During the Incas Empire religion plays an important role as well. The cult of the dead was the belief that the spirits of the dead played an active and crucial role in their lives. This belief required the veneration of ancestors for their role as protectors where their bodies were treated as sacred objects. In the same way Spaniards took advantage of an Empire that was almost in civil war, dismembered by various ideological, political and economic conflicts between Cusco and smaller ethnic groups that refused to be absorbed by Tawantinsuyu, and the lack of true unity between its members.
As Conrad and Demarest wrote, religion plays an imperative role in the rise and fall of the Natives. Conrad and Demarest expand on human sacrifices, religious beliefs, burial process and specifically their devotion to the nonliving. In Restall’s chapter 6 “The Indians are Coming to an End”, Restall indicates that the Spaniards viewed the Natives as “monsters” or non-humane because they lacked attributes of humanity due to religion and superstition. The Natives were depicted as ‘savages’ and ‘wild beasts’ in Restall’s novel; Conrad and Demarest were able to explain the root of these perceptions, which made Conrad and Demarest relate to Restall. Conrad and Demarest indicate the importance of The Sun God, Huizilipochtti to the Natives. The Native’s devotion to their Sun God caused them to perform human sacrifices along with cannibalism. This can be easily related to Restall’s idea of why the Spaniards viewed the Natives as barbaric and non-humane.
ReplyDeleteAlong with the Incas Conrad and Demarest show the importance of a deceived individual and how natives still contributed and attended to the dead. Conrad and Demarest state, “Thereafter his descendants returned to his tomb at intervals to renew offerings of food, drink and cloth” (Pg.102). Conrad and Demarest at the same time do not relate to Restall’s description and view of the Natives. Conrad and Demarest are able to explain their actions thoroughly through the Native’s point of views rather than the Spaniards. Conrad and Demarest are able to justify in detail why they act and do what they do. In Hinduism when one tries to wake the Gods they often do so through offerings as well. Hindus feed the Gods raisin and fruits, lit up incense for the Gods sense of smell, decorate their surroundings with flowers. Their contribution to the nonliving is similar to the Incas in this sense, which does not portray the Inca Natives as barbaric as Restall does.
While I agree with you about what you said in your first paragraph, about the complexity and alien rituals that the Natives performed and which the Spanish viewed led to a misunderstanding on the part of the Spaniards, I don’t necessarily agree that Restall described the Natives as barbaric, unless I misunderstood what you meant in your concluding statement. Anyone witnessing human sacrifice would be appalled, but to witness it in a foreign land populated by exotic people must have added to the disgust the Spanish felt for the act. Although personally I think that ritual human sacrifice at first must have been met with fear to the Spaniards, seeing as they were strangers and being so far from home might have thought that they too would be sacrificed.
DeleteAdding to the confusion on behalf of the Spanish was the complexities of the gods in the religions of the indigenous populations. Conrad and Demarest make mention of the complexities by describing the overlapping roles of the Incan gods which depended on the ritual being performed,(p.100). The Spanish viewed the religion of the indigenous populations similar to the religions of the different polytheistic cultures that existed in the old world. Since the religion of the Spanish is monotheistic then they would naturally see the indigenous religions as a danger to their own. Although the natives would have viewed Christianity itself as a complex religion with the different tiers that create the structure of the religion, which included angels, saints, the Holy Spirit, God, and in Catholicism the Pope himself which is viewed as the human representative of God.
Restall’s Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest in comparison with Conrand and Demarest’s Religion and Empire could not be more far from relatable. Restall’s writing, just like its title, greatly emphasizes the events that took place during the conquest of the Americas while Religion and Empire focuses on the livelihood of the pre-Columbian world (7). Although both books are set on the same stages, the times are different and therefore so are sources used to write each of them.
ReplyDeleteRestall challenges the myths of the Spanish conquest using sources such as testimonies from witnesses like Bernal Diaz and Gómara along with modern research from his contemporaries. It would be unfair to condemn these as unreliable resources, however, it is clear that most of the information comes straight from those wrote the history, the winners, in this case the Europeans.
On the other hand, Religion and Empire takes stage in pre-Columbian time. Although some of the sources used were also testimonial, extracted from the Spanish chronicles, the works of Mesoamerican and Andean authors were also taken into consideration, in addition to administrative records and archeological research (5). These last two are resources that show facts and detailed data free of bias, and that’s exactly how Comrad and Deamrest present it.
Neither one of the books is better that the other, it is clear that both are meant to educate and they do so it their own great manner, one is simply more informative and less opinionated the other.
Even though Restall's book is about debunking the miss perceptions of the Spanish Conquest and Religion and Empire primarily pertains to pre-Columbian political structure and the role of religion in the forming of those structures, I believe the books relate in the way they present their findings and what they aim to accomplish with the books. In the book religion and empire Conrad and Demarest are looking to prove that religion can be the causing factor in political and cultural change which according to them in the first chapter has been something that many historians have thought to be an untrue concept. They take many sources and archeological evidence that many historians have commented on and reviewed and use them as evidence to the prove the point that they are trying to make. Restall did the same thing in his book to disprove the many myths that many previous historians had published and believed the events that took palce during the Spanish conquest.
DeleteThough the two books are set in the same stage but are focused on two different views their tone and goals I think are very relatable. The authors are trying to break ground by placing large historical events in a new light.
The main thing were these two books are the most non relatable is the way the tone is directed towards the natives. In Restalls book the natives are painting as a very rich complex culture where the tone from Conrad and Demarest is much more negative towards the natives. They continually refer to them as savages and continually downplay any significant strides they made politically or in their empire by trying to support the point that because of religious ideology they were some what forced to expand and conquer.
I agree and disagree with some of your points. I think that ultimately both books do share some similarities and differences; however, I don’t think that a deviation between the two books is in the treatment of the natives by the authors.
DeleteI don’t think it is fair to say that Conrad and Demarest downplayed the natives’ intuition. While saying that religious ideology was a driving force in expansion of territory is fair, saying it was the only driving force isn't. For example, Conrad and Demarest point out that regarding Inca expansion, “Military expansionism was to provide wealth for some and economic security for all, political advancement for the state’s leadership, social mobility for commoners, and an honored afterlife for deserving individuals” (125). Although split inheritance provided the Inca’s ruling class with a reason to expand, commoners and those seeking social mobility didn't join in the expansion bandwagon just because they were following religious ideology, they were doing it so that they may personally get something out of it.
I can’t argue that Restall has high opinion of native society, as evident when he states that “native cultures were neither barbarous nor idyllic, but as civilized and imperfect as European cultures of the time” (102). However, it’s unfair to say that Conrad and Demarest had a generally negative tone towards the natives and thought of them as savages when one reads near the beginning of the book the credit they give Teotihuacan, the first urban center in Mesoamerica (13): “Teotihuacan’s commercial and probably even political, influence was felt as far away as the Maya centers of the jungles of northern Guatemala” (13).
I can agree with you on how the books are set on the same stage but discuss different time periods and in some ways focus on different topics.
DeleteRestall’s main focus was the seven myths that formed many people’s depiction of the Conquest. Here he targeted each of the myths while providing us with the testimonies of people who were present during the Conquest. He also uses the scholarly research from historians of present-day time.
Conrad and Demarest focus on the great empires of the Aztec and the Inca. Although they use some scholarly research and testimonies, they mainly use Mesoamerican archaeology to educate us on these empires.
The difference between these two books is that Restall presents us detail from the perspective of the European whereas Conrad and Demarest focus on the natives. As far as I have read in Religion and Empire, we don’t see much of the Spanish conquistadors except towards the end of the empires. Considering this book is set in pre-Columbian times, it makes sense why we are being informed of the empires before the Spanish came in.
Overall, I think both books inform us from two different perspectives which give us much more knowledge on the entire Spanish conquest. We can see the side from the Spanish conquistadors, the side from some of the native empires, and also targeting the myths that created the history told today. Altogether we can have a better understanding of this era.
DeleteI agree that both books do share a common topic, that of explaining the truth of the “Spanish conquest” that is usually ignored. However, I don’t think that Restall is writing in such a biased view. His chapter on “The Indians are coming to an end” gives a view on the native perspective and gives examples of how previous views pushed on this image of weak natives. On page 104 Restall says that the “natives were no more naturally malleable than were Spaniards.” I thought Restall did a good job bringing down the high pedestal Westerners had viewed the conquest, such as removing the myth that the natives saw them as Gods. Of course it is impossible to write anything without bias, but this also included Conrad and Demarest. They like archaeology and therefore spend a lot of time discussing this. However just because it is physical does not mean they are not looking at the objects with their interpretations, focusing one aspect over another. Restall’s book was on western myths regarding the conquest, so he focused on the western views. Religion and Empire The dynamics of Aztec and Inca expansion has a different focus than Restall’s, which is why I think you get more of a native perspective. Either way I agree that both these books are great at their objective, which is to educate.
ReplyDeleteIn many ways Restall and Conrad and Demarest are agreeing but their venues to do so are different. Restall sought to dispel many of the myths that were created by the Spanish, the natives, and other foreign powers for religious and political reasons. Conrad and Demarest focus is primarily on the native alliances, cultural changes, and religious ideologies that were transpiring prior to the Spanish arrival.
Restall and Conrad and Demarest are both dispelling the myth that the natives were victims, but again they choose different venues to make their points. For example, Restall's chapter titled the Invisible Warriors talks about the native alliances with Cortes when he says "Tlaxcalans rightly judged, with Spanish assistance they would be able to destroy the Mexica empire and its capital city". (47) This indicated as Restall goes onto to say that Cortes had approximately 200, 000 native allies during the conquest who were willing to fight against other natives.
Conrad and Demarest lay the foundation for the reasons the natives would eventually allign themselves with Cortes. First they discuss how their legends would vary from tribe to tribe and usually for reasons so that the tribe telling the story could link themselves directly back to the gods and have an ancestral tie that could link them to succession of power.(16) Conrad and Demarest stated that the "elite obsession with a legitimizing ancestry" helped facilitate "increasing militarism and human sacrifice".(18) These cultural and religious changes primed the natives for descent and rebellion from the Mexica and Cortes' arrival was a method by which the natives could achieve their goals.
So, again I do believe that the authors agree in many ways but choose different paths in dispelling many of the things that we think we know about the Spanish Conquest. They both agree that the Spanish didn't conquer the natives alone, the natives were not victims, and accounts from both that natives and Spanish were often self-aggrandizing and distorted for both political and religious reasons.
Vinetta Paul, I agree with your comment that both books pursue the same aspect, yet, they use a different approach to convince readers. You summarize that Restall has a more counter-approach to what many scholars have learned about the myths that were created by the Spanish, the natives, and other foreign powers for either religious and/or political pursuit. While Conrad and Demarest focuses on the native alliances, cultural changes, and religious ideologies that were descending prior to the Spanish arrival.
DeleteI like your reference to the chapter, “Invisible Warriors,” when the indigenous made alliances with Cortes: “Tlaxcalans rightly judged, with Spanish assistance they would be able to destroy the Mexica Empire and its capital city (47) As you have stated that, it was Restall’s intention to disprove any myths that Cortes did not have allies, but rather, you mention that “he had approximately 200,000 native allies during the conquest who were willing to fight against other natives.” I felt that your quote was spot on, that it truly trumps the Black Legend, which was one of the main focal points that Restall tried to argue.
You then shift gears into Conrad and Demarest’s argument that the indigenous would eventually become allies with Cortes. You mention that Conrad and Demarest discusses how the indigenous would have legends that would vary from tribe to tribe, which was very necessary to add since both authors wrote about it in the early chapters. This part I would agree with you that it was necessary, however, I would cite pages 67-70 since it refers to the decline of the Aztec Empire.
But overall, I think that you brought up great examples which would make for a strong research/comparative type paper.
Vinetta, I believe you hit the nail on the head when you stated that "Conrad and Demarest lay the foundation for the reasons the natives would eventually align themselves with Cortes" and argue that that authors are discussing similar themes from different angles.
DeleteRestall does not take us back past the point of Spanish arrival while Conrad and Demarest do not take us forward past the same point, at least through the first two chapters. Conrad and Demarest thus serve as the necessary "foundation" for Restall's work. They provide the framework for why Restall's myths are indeed myths.
As you pointed out, a large myth was of Spanish superiority, but it is Conrad and Demarest who provide the picture of native relations that made alliances with Cortes possible and desirable. The myth of exceptional men is further dispelled when Conrad and Demarest illustrate the weakness of the Mexica and Inca empires upon Spanish arrival. Much like the Mexica and Inca had done at the moment of their rise, the Spaniards took advantage of the weakness of the elder partner in the existing empirical arrangement.
As Conrad and Demarest discuss the rise of the American empires and their ability to develop alliances and administrative control over large areas, the myth of miscommunication also goes by the wayside. These were groups accustomed to interacting with different cultures and languages and building tributary and trade systems. Yes, they were in some ways similar in religious and language traits, but even La Malinche had to learn Yucatec Maya to survive.
Most importantly, which is a point you implicitly make, is that Conrad and Demarest show how the Spaniards fit into the existing political arrangements of the Americas, which Restall merely tells us happened. In this way, Restall serves as a fun introduction to the topic, showing why the image of the Spaniards is false. Conrad and Demarest provide an image of the natives that is accurate and thus undergirds Restall's claims.
Both Conrad and Demarest and Restall express ideas that the fall of the Aztec and Incan Empires was not due to the outright superiority of the Spanish colonists, but, to more complex sets of events. For Conrad and Demarest the main contributor to the downfall of the Aztec and Incan Empire was caused by several factors to include the overextension of the empires in a pursuit to increase the land holdings and to increase the tax base. Conrad and Demarest claim that the expansion of the both empires was attributed to the manipulation of the state religions by the elites in both societies after the initial establishment of their hegemonic status in their particular regions, and by do so were able to create a demand for resources that could only be met by continuing to increase the borders of their empires.
ReplyDeleteRestall does not limit his explanation on the collapse of the Aztec and Incan Empires to just one topic, but seeks out to debunk the myths that have developed over the last centuries. Restall’s explanation for the collapse of the two Indigenous empires includes the idea that the conquest of both empires was assisted by regional conflicts that the Spanish were able to take advantage of. Conrad and Demarest offer a better explanation by concluding that the pressures to increase the borders of the empires would force the Aztec and the Inca to engage with indigenous opponents that they would be incapable of defeating. This inability to defeat their regional opponents would leave the Aztecs and the Incas with enemies that would be more than willing to fight alongside the Spanish.
Spanish conquest and Incan conquest had some similarities. Although their philosophy was different in many aspects, both cultures felt that it was necessary to expand in the name of preserving their individual ways. Although different, both Spain and the Incas were both able to use the excuse of religion as reasons to expand. According to Conrad and Demarest, “Military expansionism was to provide wealth for some and economic security for all…”(125) I feel that this is a similar claim that the Spanish used for coming over and trying to expand on the Americas. With a growing population that needed room to expand, the Incas experienced a very similar experience of mid 15th century imperialism. This form of imperialism, being defined from your religious beliefs, had to do with the spread of cultural factors. One specific example that Conrad and Demarest specifically address is the Inca’s ability to quickly forge towns after settling in a new area, and design it to be similar to their home villages. Not only did this increase the spread of their influence, but it also brought up a source of revenue for the Incas. Typically, panaquas (Incan interest groups in wanting to expand) were the ones not only leading this charge on the battlefield, but also for the most personal interest. Isn’t it interesting that we see the similar ideals in Incan society as the Spanish? In both societies, we see “nobles” buying their status, taking power in the new lands conquered, and maintaining it through the continuous expansion. Overall, I see very similar references between the two books.
ReplyDeleteIn Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest by Matthew Restall the reader is exposed to the truths behind many of the historical myths that surround the Spanish Conquest. In Religion and Empire by Conrad and Demarest, we see the authors engaging the reader by explaining the multifaceted Aztec culture and the shifts that society experienced with a focus on political and societal structure.
ReplyDeleteWhen one takes into consideration the subject matter explored by both books one can begin to understand and examine that although they focus on the Aztec empire and Spanish, they approach and discuss different aspects of the two empires. Restall focuses on a broader view and has its focal point after the fall of the Aztec Empire and the Spanish “conquest”. He then discusses the myths that have followed the history of that point in time. While Restall focuses on the myths that surround the Aztec Empire and Spanish “conquest”, Conrad and Demarest focus on the events that led to the Spanish “conquest”. Although it is important to point out that, both books try to dispel some of the preconceived notions of that time period. Another imperative point that should be highlighted is that the authors agree that there were other factors that contributed to the demise of the Aztec Empire than just the Spanish’s arrival.
Moreover, the tone of the books and the way they investigated the subject matter differ slightly. Demarest and Conrad are archeologist and rely on their archeological research while Restall relies more on primary and secondary historical sources.
In all both books have their similarities and differences, but I think that reading these two books together help someone interested in this point in history understand more about the culture and past of the Aztec and Spanish.
In Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest by Matthew Restall the reader is exposed to the truths behind many of the historical myths that surround the Spanish Conquest. In Religion and Empire by Conrad and Demarest, we see the authors engaging the reader by explaining the multifaceted Aztec culture and the shifts that society experienced with a focus on political and societal structure.
ReplyDeleteWhen one takes into consideration the subject matter explored by both books one can begin to understand and examine that although they focus on the Aztec empire and Spanish, they approach and discuss different aspects of the two empires. Restall focuses on a broader view and has its focal point after the fall of the Aztec Empire and the Spanish “conquest”. He then discusses the myths that have followed the history of that point in time. While Restall focuses on the myths that surround the Aztec Empire and Spanish “conquest”, Conrad and Demarest focus on the events that led to the Spanish “conquest”. Although it is important to point out that, both books try to dispel some of the preconceived notions of that time period. Another imperative point that should be highlighted is that the authors agree that there were other factors that contributed to the demise of the Aztec Empire than just the Spanish’s arrival.
Moreover, the tone of the books and the way they investigated the subject matter differ slightly. Demarest and Conrad are archeologist and rely on their archeological research while Restall relies more on primary and secondary historical sources.
In all both books have their similarities and differences, but I think that reading these two books together help someone interested in this point in history understand more about the culture and past of the Aztec and Spanish.
Religion and Empire tries to put together the history of the Aztecs and Inca in a pre-Columbian setting by Archeology and actual evidence. Seven myths of the Spanish conquest use written documents by the Spaniards and stories told by the natives. Just because both books are telling different times of history and a different way of getting facts to best tell the history Pre-columbian and the Spanish conquest doest not mean that they don't relate. One must understand Pre-Columbian history to understand the Native American position at the time of the Spaniard conquest. In Religion and Empire Conrad and Demarest explain the Pre-colombian history has been dated back to 2,500 B.C (87). Showing that before the Inca's took power there where many other civilazations that were in power before the Incas. It shows the history of the civilizations the conflicts that each civilization had with each other. When the Spaniards came it was perfect timing because the Incas were in a middle of a civil war. Conrad and Demarest also shows the religions and how they were similar and different in each civilization and the impact the religion played in their history. One could say that Demarest and Conrad is a bit more reliable evidence of history becuase their findings are based on Archeological work.
ReplyDeleteRendall starts where Conrad and Demarest left off. Rendall's telling of the spanish conquest mostly consists of written documents by the Spaniards. One could say that it doesn't make good evidence of the story of the Spanish conquest because you are only getting one side of the story in this case the Spaniards. I believe both books are definitely relate because one must understand Pre-columbian history to understand the Spanish Conquest of the Incas and Aztecs.
Restall and Conrad and Demarest do relate and agree on the reasons for which the Indian's empires were in decline even though they approach the situations differently. Restall focuses on diminishing the ideas of other people who believed that the Spaniards were the ones who were accredited for the fall of the Indian empires. Restall states that the civil wars between the Indians, and diseases were the main reasons for the fall of the Indian empires. It wasn't just a few Spaniards taking over hundreds of Indians with the use of their unseen before horses or war gear. Conrad and Demarest also agree on the fact that the Spaniards weren't the ones to give full credit for the fall of the empires but Conrad and Demarest approach this theory differently. Conrad and Demarest accredit the fall of the Indian empires to the huge amounts of human sacrifices made to the gods by all empires. In having the sacrifices, the empire's number of people decreased significantly leaving the empires with less members at a time. There was also need for enemy sacrifices, which meant that people had to be captured during the times of war in order to have a successful sacrifice. This also lowered the amounts of populations in all the empires, thus making it easier for the Spaniards to simply go in and take over. Therefore, I believe that Restall and Conrad and Demarest both agreed on the fact that the Spaniards weren't the only reason as to why the Indian tribes declined.
ReplyDeleteThe history of the conquest of America was full of myths. Many questions such as Why myths are recurrent and have not been revalued or reread? Restall wanted to clarify all these myths for better understanding of the processes of the conquest. He structures the work into seven chapters where in each one undo a minor myths interrelated with each other; even the truths rediscovered in the analysis of one of them, serves to remove another. In his book, Restall takes a revisionist history from a critical perspective, subject to the sources that have shaped our vision of the conquest to rational criticism.
ReplyDeleteAlso, this leads to think that Restall’s book is not aimed at the community of historians, but the general public. But the merit is in Restall’s proposal on sources of conquest. It is important to make an extensive and thorough reading of them, never assume anything and always focus on the use of words. After reading the book it is clear that colonization which was directed by Castilian men who came from lower social strata in search of fortune in the form of royal favor, but was made by the Indians and black slaves, and it was not completed until after the independence of the republics.
Conrad and Demarest present their view differently, focusing on expansionism and religion in particular ways. Religion plays a very important role and it was linked to the economic, political and social system in both Inca and Aztec empires. They give us an approach to those prominent cultures from its beginnings to its decline. During the Aztec Empire ideological factors originated internal cultural tensions, economic and political impossible to solve. The problems reached a critical situation in less than a century; the Spanish took advantage of a state that was self-destructed inside. It was precisely this religious ideology of expansionism Aztec engine and in the same way its irremediable decay. During the Incas Empire religion plays an important role as well. The cult of the dead was the belief that the spirits of the dead played an active and crucial role in their lives. This belief required the veneration of ancestors for their role as protectors where their bodies were treated as sacred objects. In the same way Spaniards took advantage of an Empire that was almost in civil war, dismembered by various ideological, political and economic conflicts between Cusco and smaller ethnic groups that refused to be absorbed by Tawantinsuyu, and the lack of true unity between its members.