In our opening class of, "Conquest and Colonization of Latin America", we, as a class, were left to decide what the meaning of conquest was. Although this may seem like an easy task, the truth of the matter is that this word needs more than just typical shallow thinking to dissect. While brainstorming, the class chose to use words such as "War", "Disease", "Expansion", "Technology", and many other words to describe "Conquest" . Based off of the words from class, I was not able to determine if the word "Conquest" is an accurate word to describe what really happened in Latin America during the late 1400's-1600's.
Through reading Restall, I think I formed the opinion that the course title accurately tells half of the story, being the colonization aspect, but not accurately depicting the truths of said "Conquest". While the Spaniards were able to set up towns such as Vera Cruz (pg 20) after landing in America, the intent was not entirely to attack natives, rather establish a town where men could achieve their own power in a financial aspect. As depicted by the graph on page 36,only 2 men on the original trip to Panama out of 100 were trained soldiers. The description of the men on this trip obviously depicts the intent of colinizing rather than a "Conquest".
However, it is in my opinion the Spanish had a smaller level of participation in combat that is typically given to them. As seen and explained by Restall's image and explanation on page 37, the "Spanish Conquest" was helped achieved by making local native allies. I believe that one could make a claim with some more in depth research calling the altercation a civil war amongst the native people. Restall quotes Cortes on page 48 explaining if they are divided, they will fall. It is important to emphasize that Cortes is not only talking about enemy natives, but the native population altogether.
By the context listed above I believe that the Spanish were able to colonize successfully, but rather took advantage of an opportunity and did not necessary successful within a traditional typical "conquest".
I both agree and disagree with your statements in this post. Where we most disagree is in your definition of what is or is not considered a Conquest.
ReplyDeleteYour first point is that the actions of the Spanish were not a conquest because they did not have the intent to kill any natives, but I think that points out where our definition of the word conquest is so wrong. Modern definitions of conquest generally include violent acts and actions based in war and death, but are all conquests bloody? I believe that Conquest is land based, not violence-based. And as Restall points out numerous times, a major goal for the conquistadors was to become governors of large amounts of land. Restall tells us (p. 39-41) the story of Francisco de Montejo who traveled and changed patronages multiple times in order to gain more land and governorships. These actions were Conquistador norms.
You also point out that the Conquistadors were not trained soldiers, and, again, I believe that feeds into this Western notion that all conquests are violent. To be a Conquistador is not the same as being a soldier. It wasn’t until sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that the language and thought of Conquistadors had evolved along with the changing military dynamics in Europe. As Restall points out (p. 32), while there was in fact a military revolution happening in Europe, it was not nearly evolved enough nor well enough funded to bring that military use to Latin America. It would not have been practical for Spain to do so. Long after the Conquistadors were dead, they were suddenly deemed ‘soldiers’. Restall also points out (p. 29-30) that the use of language shifted during that time, and the word ‘soldado’ (soldier) was not even used in Conquistador writings until its single use in 1566: by a new arrival that had probably had more influence in her language from Spain than from the conquests. While Bernal Díaz used the word quite often, we must remember that his book was likely edited to reflect the views in Spain at the time.
Your final argument is that the Spanish conquistadors held a small percentage of the fighting compared to their use of other native peoples and enslaved/freed Africans. That is one fact that cannot be ignored. Yes, the Spanish enlisted the help of Africans and other native peoples when it came to actual fighting, but that was the norm of the time for everyone – Spanish, Portuguese, French, German, etc. etc. The military forms and tactics we know today – well, the military force in general that we know and recognize today – was a distant wish at the time of the Spanish Conquest. As clearly pointed out by Restall in Ch. 2, the Conquistadors were not soldiers. They enlisted the help of people that – to them, at least – were both better trained and more expendable. No, Alvarado did not write to Cortes or to the king about “the five or six thousand friendly natives” (p. 45), and why would he? In Ch. 1, Restall told us about probanzas de méritos, or probanzas for short, which were letters sent to the king of Spain that basically told him and the rest of Spain about how great the Conquistadors were and that they were these exceptional and unbeatable men that were blowing right through Latin America (p. 11-12). These letters were what usually convinced the king to allow more conquests which equaled more land and money for the Conquistadors, which is what they were truly after. If those letters were what ultimately gave a Conquistador more land and money, why would they admit to using the help of Africans and natives? That wouldn’t benefit them.
I firmly believe that the actions can still be classified as a Conquest, even if they were not rooted in violence. Western Society has deemed “Conquest” as such because of the grand myths that came from The Spanish Conquest. So instead of “The Spanish Conquest” with the exceptional, white, Conquistador soldiers, how about we tell it like it is? “The Conquest of Latin America by Spaniards Looking for Land and Money, Greatly Assisted by Native Peoples and Africans.”
I would claim to disagree with this post on the grounds that I believe the intentions and actions of the Spanish constituted conquest from the very beginning. The Spanish were not settlers looking for a newfound freedom such as the puritans in North America, They were very much still tied to their native country and their motives in the new world was to secure status, wealth, and security in the eyes of those back in their land. Regardless of whether by their own means, or by using rival natives to achieve their ambitions they sought a complete social and economic control over the region. On (page 21) Restall claims that the most important thing to a Conquistador was a royal confirmation of their governorship. Vera Cruz (page 20) was named before it was developed for this very reason. This was because once such a title was granted, that person had control over all people and resources in the region. In fact, such permission would not be granted from royalty if it was not proven that the land held resources and people for exploitation. The land would then be divided amongst the party into Encomiendas and the people on the land would pass under the direction of the owner. Because of the characteristics of this system it is not merely just colonization, but a conquest. The Spanish came there with the soul motive of exploiting the land, resources, and people, regardless of their wishes, for their own selfish advancement.
ReplyDelete