Inaccurate Claims

            I find the myth of completion interesting. Specifically, I would like to discuss the “submyth of willing native submission.” Though it may sound imprudent by today’s standards, conquistadors thought that the Castilian-Portuguese treaty, which divided the Americas, gave them a divine right to the land and everything that came with it (including the natives). Hence, they were justified in all their actions, no matter how violent, in order to secure their rightful belongings. In order to understand, one must put themself in their shoes. Restall reaches the comical conclusion that “by extension, native peoples were Spanish subjects waiting to be located and informed of their new status.” (page 68) Their new status being loyal subjects of the Spanish monarch. By default, any type of resistance by the natives would be considered, by Spaniards, a rebellion. This is also due to the fact that conquistadors prematurely claimed that conquests were complete.

            There is, however, a lesson to be learned by some of the examples that Restall discusses in the text. Closed reading is a must when examining primary (and secondary) sources. Considering the text of a primary source to be factual, when indeed it is not, is how some myths are born. Restall gives the example of a “rebellion” which commonly has an inaccurate understanding of the actual events. Maya groups resisted conquistadors presence who had prematurely declared a region conquered. “Four centuries later, historians were still calling this ‘The Great Maya Revolt.’” (page 69) Do not believe something is factual just because someone said it is. As Restall discusses, conquistadors had motives for being deceitful.