According
to Matthew Restall, the "Black Legend" was a myth which "depicted
the Spaniards as brutal, bloody colonists who systematically victimized their
native subjects" (Restall 119). As
we discussed in our last class, the way in which scholars have engaged the Black
Legend as shifted over the centuries. As
time passed, broad acceptance of the myth gave way to mass rejection (class
notes). Today neither the Conquest nor the
Black Legend is completely celebrated (class notes). Our second book, Religion and Empire: The Dynamics of Aztec and Inca Expansionism by
Geoffrey W. Conrad and Arthur A. Demarest, was written in the latter part of
the twentieth century. Although the first
half of the text does not celebrate the Spanish Conquest or the Black Legend, I
believe the authors do indirectly engage the myth.
One area of focus in the text is
that of Mexica ritual human sacrifice practices. We are told that "[d]epending on the
sacred context of the offering, the victim could be decapitated, burned,
drowned, strangled, skinned alive, [or] thrown from a great height" (28)
among other horrible things. In
addition, the authors tell us that ritual cannibalism was practiced by the indigenous
people of the region (29). The focus
within the text on the scale and brutality of Mexica ritual human sacrifice, as
well as ritual cannibalism suggests that the people of Mesoamerica were "uncivilized,"
or simply "barbaric." By casting Mesoamericans in this way, there is
a potential for viewing Spanish conquest efforts in a positive light. If one is to view the Spanish Conquest as a
"civilizing" mission, than one must reject the Black Legend. The actions of the Spanish then appear as necessary
in the civilization process.
I agree with you that the authors confront the Black Legend, even if in a more covert way. As I mentioned in my blog post, I think there are two pieces to the Black Legend. The Black Legend stereotypes the Spanish as cruel, heartless, and cold-blooded killers, but it also stereotypes the indigenous peoples as innocent and defenseless. With the authors’ explicit and detailed picture of the violence within the culture of the peoples of the New World, we are forced to change our view of the Spanish, as well as the native peoples.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I would disagree with you that the authors intend for the readers to see the Spanish conquest as a positive “civilizing mission”. I would argue that the way in which the Spanish went about the “civilization process”, as you called it, was every bit as uncivilized and barbaric as the Aztec way of war. If one is to see that the Spanish did a positive thing by their actions in the civilization process, than one must think that certain civilizations are objectively more positive than others.
I think rather than asserting this, the authors were trying to portray the Aztec Empire as equally vicious as the Spanish Conquistadors that would follow. Rather than showing that the Aztecs were so barbaric that the Spanish did them a service in helping them become more civilized through the Conquest, I think the authors are trying to put the indigenous peoples on the same level as the Spanish; in terms of civilization as well as barbarism. But that’s just my guess.