Domination of Latin America
I believe that the word conquest in referring to the decimation of indigenous peoples in Latin America by the Spaniards gives too much credit to the actions of the conquistadores and neglects a multitude of other factors in the historical account of these events. The term conquest exaggerates the stature of the Spanish conquistadores. The term conquest implies and contributes to the building up of their mythical status in some narratives of history. The notion of conquest completely ignores the colossal impact that the spread of Eurasian diseases had on the native people of Latin America. As Matthew Restall states “The conquistadores had two great allies, without which the Conquest would not have taken place. One of these was disease. For ten millennia the Americas had been isolated from the rest of the world. The greater numbers of people in the Old World, and the greater variety of domesticated animals from which such diseases as smallpox, measles, and flu originated, meant that Europeans and Africans arrived in the New World with a deadly array of germs”(140). Among these devastating diseases were smallpox, measles, whooping cough, influenza, bubonic plague, malaria, and cholera. McNeill’s Law states that microbiological factors will impact imperial ambitions in history. This is definitely the case with the Spanish and the spread of these deadly diseases in the Americas. The Black Death which had ravaged through Europe during the 14th century originally came from Asia through trade routes. The phenomenon of diseases drastically killing off large numbers of populations who have had no previous exposure or immunity to them is known as “virgin soil” epidemics. The Black Death in Europe and the cost of that disease spreading also debunks the lies that European whites had stronger immune systems than the Native Americans but instead they had only been exposed to those illnesses and built up immunities. By the 1530s, only 40 years after the arrival of Columbus, smallpox raged rapidly from the Great Lakes region in North America to Argentina in South America.
Another lie of the Spanish domination of Latin America was the Europeans had more sophisticated technology and culture and the indigenous people thought they were gods which allowed the few Spanish to subjugate entire civilizations. European firearms during the late 15th and early 16th centuries were extremely primitive by today’s standards and were quite clumsy. Muskets became useless if wet, were slow to load, and often misfired. Matthew Renstall argues “Guns, too, were of limited use. Cannons were few in number in the Americas, and without roads or navigable rivers, their transportation was a major challenge. Much of the Americas where Spaniards fought was tropical or subtropical and in the humidity the powder became too wet to fire. Firearms, in the form of harquebuses, whose unwieldy barrels required the support of tripods, were likewise not plentiful and required dry powder” (143). Another factor which helped the Spanish was the localized tribal tension of these indigenous people and the culture of warfare that existed prior to Spanish arrival. These native peoples had no concept of racial or national identity and instead were loyal only to their own local tribes. Matthew Renstall contends “The second great ally of the conquistadores was native disunity in its many forms and manifestations. Native American identity was highly localized; native peoples saw themselves as members of particular communities or city-states, very seldom as members of larger ethnic groups and certainly not as anything even approaching the category of ‘Indians’ or ‘Natives’” (142). The domination and subjugation of indigenous people in the Americas was not due to exaggerated notions of Spanish conquest nor was it pure dumb luck but rather a combination of very inherent factors in hindsight.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely a Conquest
ReplyDeleteDuring class we discussed what the term conquest meant. We came up with many definitions that described this word. The word conquest has so many different definitions and it cannot be narrowed down to one absolute description. In my opinion the Spanish did conquer Latin America, because of the legacy’s they have left behind. Such as language, religion, music, and overall culture. It is easy to say that the Spanish did not conquer Latin America based on what we know today. We know that it took years and decades for Spain to get full control of its colonies. Restall gives is the example of the “Araucanians of Chile—who fought for decades and eventually killed the black conquistador Juan Valiente—resisted conquest into the nine teenth century, when they continued to fight the Chilean republic in the name of the monarchy they had previously defied” (72). We know so much of Spain’s “failures” that it clouds our judgment of this situation.
Spain did not conquer Latin America single handedly. The native populations aided the Spanish in their conquest. Restall says, “the armies of Nahua warriors who waged campaigns in what is now northern Mexico, southern Mexico, Yucatan, Guatemala, and Honduras helped create the colonial kingdom of New Spain and were led by Spanish captains” (123). The Spanish used the social and political divisions among natives to their advantage. These new native soldiers became apart of the Spanish conquest. Spanish captains lead natives into battle to conquer other regions. It does not matter if only Spanish conquistadors were responsible for the fall of the Aztecs and Inca. The fact is that the Spanish were able to lead a mix army under their control and authority to conquer other lands.
Spain’s influence in Latin America is evident to this day. Although Spain did not conquer Latin America effectively, they still managed to influence the everyday lives of the majority of the people they ruled.