Dear students,
I wrote this last Wed but must not have hit publish -- I'm sorry. You may have until this Wed to post:
Does Stern support or challenge any of the paradigms that Restall identifies as myths? Give specific examples from this week's readings.
Stern is quite supportive of Matthew Restall’s thesis, providing evidence from the Humanga region alone that refutes each one of Restall’s seven myths. Even the “Myth of the White Conquistador,” usually one of the more difficult myths to refute given the traditional focus on the Spanish and the Native, is amply dispensed with as Stern refers quite often to Mestizos and Africans within the labor force. The myth that Stern utterly destroys, and which I wish to focus on, is the “Myth of (Mis)communication.”
ReplyDeleteStern describes two incredibly rapid adaptations by the Natives in response to the Spanish presence: The understanding and implementation of commercialization and the utilization of the court system (unfortunately discussed in a future chapter). As the Spaniards sought to commercialize the local economy to increase their profit, the Natives did more than adapt, they “embraced the entry of commercial capital onto the Andean stage” (40). Early encomenderos such as Diego Maldanado preferred to obtain labor by agreement with the kurakas, who leveraged their position to obtain benefits for themselves (33). The natives took advantage of these new opportunities both collectively and individually, taking over operation of mines abandoned by the Incas and establishing jointly owned coca plantations (38).
This rapid assimilation of a business model foreign to the collective nature of the ayllu is astounding and reflects, as Stern writes, “an open, aggressive – even enthusiastic – attitude” to commercialization. For the Natives to first understand the new economic framework, and then make use of it through mita labor, trade and commerce reveals a high level of communication and understanding between cultures. Stern perhaps argues a bit too convincingly that communication between Spaniard and Native existed on a high level and could be said to fall prey to the flip side of the “Myth of (Mis)communication” propagated by the early conquistadors – that the Spaniards and Natives understood each other perfectly.
Stern’s assertions are almost entirely in line with those made by Restall. Foremost, he discusses the ideas that both parties are driven by true engrained ideology, that the natives were not disadvantaged people ravaged to ruin by European influence, and that most elements of the European conquest were not near completion by the end of the 16th century. Stern gives several examples of how the Andean natives behave towards each other in a manner very similar to the treatment they experience at the hands of the Europeans showing they are just as socially and morally aware as the Europeans. More powerful Ayllus would force less prominent ones into subservience and such mechanics were seen as culturally and spiritually acceptable (Stern 8-9.). He also gives plenty of evidence to show that the Kurakas in charge of Ayllus were more than willing to form alliances and cooperate with the Spanish so long as the relationship was profitable for them. In fact, the extent of this cooperation (and oppression) was often only limited by the societal powers of the Kurakas over their subjects and not by the desire of the leader to protect his people. (Stern 48.). These ideas tie in to other assertions Stern makes which are in line with Restall’s. The culture of the Andeans was so ingrained in their behavior, that although the Spanish very quickly became one of the most effective martial forces in the region and exerted great influence, the natives were far from complete social assimilation. Firstly, the willingness of the Andean people to form alliances and consider the new Christian God came from their belief that there could not be any holder of power without the favor of the gods and thus any advancement or benefit could only come from wariness of this phenomenon (Stern 48.). Another example is the presented fact that the Kurakas where the ones who held dominion over their people and only with their approval could the lower echelons be told to work for the Spanish (Stern 40-50.). Lastly it is also expressed that the European clergy was very troubled by many “heresies” such the natives’ belief that it was the course of nature that any such massive destructive force (as the Europeans were seen to be) would eventually be brought to an end as a new time arose. (Stern 66.). It is very evident in this book that the Andeans entire existence was defined by the their belief in reoccurring shifts of dominance in nature and that is why they were able to weather Spanish influence so well and resist cultural assimilation well past the end of the 16th century.
ReplyDeleteRestall and Stern make several corresponding points in their books. Both gave the natives credit in the “conquest.” Not only that native helped, but that they were crucial, at least in the beginning. They both made the point that natives wanted to make use of the conquistadors for their own ulterior motives. Restall said “native Mesoamericans endeavored as much as Cortés ... to exploit the situation in pursuit of immediate political goals” (48) and Sterns with the same idea said that the natives “hoped that alliances with Europeans would help the gain the upper hand in their own native rivalries”(31). This idea breaks away the myth of weak Indians over powered by the strong conquistadors. Another point that they made was that the natives did fight back. Restall mentions that “Manco’s great siege of Cuzco” would have destroyed Pizarro’s forces if native allies had not “saved the Spaniards” an example where native alliance was important to the conquest (49). Sterns also mentions this rebellion, adding that “the threat of neo-Inca raids and local rebellions” were a real issue in the colonial development (28). There is only one point where I believe both authors split in myth breaking, and that is on the idea that the natives viewed the conquistadors as Gods. Sterns said that “we need not assume ingenuous interpretations of foreigners as gods to appreciate the aura of invincibility” that came from the conquistadors (27). Since assume means “to take up or in” I think that Sterns believes that the natives did see the conquistadors as gods, even if he does not think that the fact is of great importance. This idea that the natives thought the conquistadors were invincible, is not an idea that Restall would agree with, but beside that point I think they both agree on more occasions than not.
ReplyDeleteDespite the years separating the publication of Stern and Restall’s respective books, it is easy to see that the two authors would agree that many things that people throughout history have thought were more mythical than factual.
ReplyDeleteFor one both authors challenge the idea that the Spanish conquistadors simply came in, swatted away any resistance and ruled over the native people of the Andes. As Stern says himself: “Easy conquests create false mystiques” (27). In his book, Restall points out that even after they officially defeated the native empires—which was not even easy to begin with—the Mexica and the Inca did not simply lie down and accept foreign rule. The Spanish would have to frequently return to villages and reassert (i.e. Reconquer) their authority. Stern parallels this in his description of the Spanish conquest and occupation of the Andes, stating that they did not simply defeat the Inca but that they had to fight a protracted war against an enemy using guerilla tactics. Nor did the natives simply give up after they had lost, often they would ally with the Spanish when the situation suited them and then rebel when it did not.
Furthermore, the notion that the Spanish land-holders known as encomenderos were exceptional men is also refuted by Stern. Though he does not address the myth directly, the evidence he presents contradicts it and would imply that he does not believe it himself. For example, if these men were so exceptional they would no-doubt be able to rule over their lands the way they saw fit. But Stern points out that “the colonial economy continued to depend for goods and labor almost wholly upon an Andean social system” (40).
Stern, in describing the conquest of Peru by Spaniards, does not challenge but supports several of the paradigms that Restall identifies as myth. The most obvious myth that is debunked by both Stern and Restall is the myth that the “conquest” was an event that culminated in the complete subjugation of Andean peoples. In fact according to evidence provided by Stern, the conquest was anything but complete. The puppet leader Manco Inca was able to escape captivity and begin a campaign of harassment that left the region of Huamanga in a constant state of alert, (28). The religious conquest in the Andes was incomplete as well. Instead of capitulating to Catholicism, the natives in and around the region of Huamanga decided to create alliances between their gods and the gods of the Spaniards, (39). By establishing an alliance between the two religious sects the natives were able to incorporate the Christian gods without having to cast aside their old beliefs, (39). If conquest was complete and the natives capitulated to the Spaniards then resistance should have been non-existent. But the Spaniards did not enjoy complete control of the region, which is why two thousand native accompanied the Spanish in an attempt to secure the region from Manco Inca, (30). Even if the Spaniards enjoyed some military advantages over the natives they could not establish dominance over the regional economy. The Spanish weren’t just heavily dependent on indigenous labor in the mines but were also dependent on the kuraka’s ability to supply such labor, (42). Had the Spanish established complete control of the region they would not be dependent on natives for military conflicts or economic endeavors.
ReplyDeleteStern supports Restall on certain myths written by him such as "Apes and Men", and "White Conquistador". The Andean cultures were able to farm the dangerous terrain and climate of the Andes through kinship bonds, which bound communities by defining the word relatives as a broader less constrictive term. This aloud "reciprocal exchanges of labor among relatives."(pg 8) which provided the communities with a large and cooperative labor force because in essence they were not only working for themselves but for their own relatives. This demonstrates an ability to manipulate language and definitions of words and bend them into something that supports agricultural growth. This manipulation of language also denotes the "Apes and Men" myth by illustrating how intelligent and productive Andean societies really were.
ReplyDeleteThe Spanish on the other hand did not posses the ability to farm and maintain the land which is why they had to ship slaves from Africa to maintain an agricultural labor force. This denotes the myth of "white conquistadors" that Restall describes. Because the Encomeinderos were in such need of Indian labor they had to exercise other practices such as "they could draw on the services of slaves and mestizos"(pg 41) this quote proves the support of Restall's myth of "The White Conquistador" by Stern because if there were only white peoples then why are there an increasing number of blacks shipped to the Andes over the centuries of Spanish control?
Stern’s writing is right in line with that of Restall as both of their works defy the simplistic understanding that people typically have in analyzing the conquest and the event that took place within it. Specifically, so far, Stern is in line with Restall in his myths of native desolation and the myth of superiority. As Restall says the myth of native desolation includes, “ the nature of native civilizations before the Conquest, native reactions to the Conquest, and the long term impact of colonization of colonization on native societies” (Restall 101). It later it developed into a myth that described the natives as innocent with no civilized structure who had no possibility of enduring the conquest; in addition, that myth is also is interrelated to the myth of superiority that essentially outlined the innate superiority that the Europeans supposedly had. Stern’s writing was clearly in line with Restall’s writing as the Huamanga were not innately inferior as they had a strong societal structure through their system of kinship that allowed them to survive. As Stern discussed (page 31), natives had the wherewithal to comprehend the possible benefits of certain relationships and rivalries with other allyus, ethnic groups, Europeans alike. The religious practices of the people of Huamanga united large numbers of people to complete certain tasks and created an effective economic system of sustainability for the natives. Therefore, the natives were not an inferior population who were simply taken over by the Europeans, but they were intelligent groups of people who welcomed certain changes (European commercialization) while rejecting other based on their personal beliefs in addition to having pre-established economic and social structures. The fact that Europeans would apply certain aspects of the native structure to their societal structure exemplifies the lack of superiority that existed in the relationship between the Europeans and the natives.
ReplyDeleteRanstell and Stern support each other in the sense that there are myths in the conquest of the mesoamericans that Ranstell points out, and Stern points out the myth that Religion played the main role in the material welfare and community togetherness of the Andean community.
ReplyDeleteOne Paradigm that Ranstell points out is that the Mesoamericans were defeated because the Spaniard had made alliances with Mesoamericans that were taxed and under the rule of the Aztecs, and that had help the Spaniards conquered them. The Myth was that the Spaniards had conquered (thousands of them and the spaniards only been a few hundred) because of their superior technology like the metal swords and riffle muskets without any help. This is what Rastell calls a myth.
"The believe that relations with the gods affected material welfare, though it strengthened the authority of the community elite, was nonetheless rooted in practical practice." (18). Stern is saying that people did all the labor and worked together because they needed to so that they could so survive and not because of religion. That is a myth that Stern points out and that supports Ranstell paradigm.
Steve Stern’s Peru’s Indian Peoplesand the Challenge of Spanish Conquest: Huamanga to 1640 supports Matthew Restall’s Seven Myths. In Particular, Restall’s “myth of superiority” points out that the Spaniards were not the dominant force that many people believed. The Spanish needed the indigenous’ support in order to maintain some sort of settlement. So the Andamaracas and Laramati recognized the Spaniards as their new ally. This alliance was “textbook” for the Spanish by establishing some form of friendship with the indigenous in order to find control in their conquest. By doing so, they were able to instigate the problems within the Inca Empire (Stern 30)
ReplyDeleteIn Restall’s “invisible warrior”, he mentioned that the myth was assumed that the Spanish “conquest” was completed by the white Europeans. When Diego Maldonado showered gifts to the kurakas of his Andahaylas encomienda, he gave the native elites “a black slave, mules, horses, livestock, and fine Ina and Spanish cloths,” which the kuraka later states that it was “for the services they would render him” The key component in Maldonado’s gift was the black slave, this would be clear indication that there were slaves from Africa used as an ally for the Spanish. (Stern 31)
Stern supports the paradigms that Restall identifies as myths. In his book, Restall mentions "the Myth of the White Conqueror " where he tries to prove that the conquest was not made by a small group of Spanish. The indigenous played a greater role than normally history has given to them. “Yet a careful search through the many sources on the Spanish invasion of Mexico reveals numerous casual references to the participation of native allies. For example, during his 1524 invasion of highland Guatemala, Alvarado wrote two letters to Cortez … the second mentioning just once, in parentheses, that his force comprised 250 Spaniards and about five or six thousand friendly Indians.” (45)
ReplyDeleteIt is very important to mention that Indian tribes allied themselves to the cause of the Spanish conquest. They were not satisfied with the Aztecs and Incas before the arrival of the Spanish. Their religious policies generated much resentment among the surrounding populations causing its debacle. Spanish used this perfectly to carry out its mission. They did not do anything until the arrival of the Spanish who were the major motivators for those groups. They will rise up in arms and succeed in destroying their traditional enemies. These arguments would benefit the Spanish in the conquest also convincing the natives to join them and make possible the overthrow of those great empires.
Even though the alliances were establish many years after the conquest is important to mention the great importance of this. “Within these circumstances, and despite tenuous loyalties and occasional conflicts between Europeans and their native allies, the conquistadores got the help they needed.” (30) Stern mentions that the natives established alliances with the Spanish. The indigenous population sought to end the yoke imposed by the Incas. On the other hand the Spanish tried to cultivate loyalty among the Indians to defend themselves from incursions led by Manco Inca in 1536. However, the author reveals the “reciprocity” that existed at this early stage was deteriorated by the demographic, discrimination, abuse, the growing demand for labor after the discovery of gold, silver and mercury mines. The Indians realized that their interests and the settlers were opposed.