Is "conquest" an appropriate description for what happened in Mesoamerica and the Andes in the sixteenth century? (Give examples to support your ideas.) Are there more appropriate terms for this phenomenon?
During our first class we defined the term "conquest". As a whole, a "conquest" was defined as a "religious overtaking by force/ violence for gold, god and glory". The name of the "Spanish Conquest" has been passed down through history and was established by the Spanish conquistadors themselves. In Renstall's monograph, "Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest", He also defines the word conquest and why it was not an appropriate word for the events that occured. He states, "Some wars have two names. What Russians call the Great Patriotic War is known in the West as the Second World War. The Mexican-American War is, to those south of the border, the War of the North American Invasion. But the Conquest of Mexico has no other name. Nobody has ever called it, at least in print, the War of the Spanish Invasion, or the Spanish-Mexica War. The same is true for the Conquest of Peru, the Conquest of Yucatan, and so on" (page 64).
During this section of Renstall's book, he explains WHY it was called the conquest and that was because in the eyes of the Spanish, it was. They wanted to expand and rule. The spanish believed that they had the devine right to conquer. The letters that the conquistadors wrote back to Spain even showed the misconception that everything was okay. Although the conquistadors are critized because of the way they went about the "conquest", the name that they called their expedition sheds light into their thinking. "Conquest" gives evidence of confidence and success and as far as the conquistadors were concerned, they were successful and that is how they wanted to be pertrayed in the future.
I like how you examined the use of the term "conquest" in regards to the thoughts of the conquistadors. I agree that the sense of confidence was there to the point that made them believe they had completed their endeavor. I would also like to tie in Restall's explanation of the outcome of the Spanish Conquest. He defined several factors that gave Spaniards an edge in their conflicts with Native Americans. These factors were European diseases, Native disunity, and European weaponry and resources. Restall states that if any of these factors were not present than the chances of failure would have greatly increased for the conquistadors. These factors link with what you were saying because they support your assertion that the conquistadors believed they were successful.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think it is important to examine other instances for comparison. I believe it helps provide not only evidence but also perspective in topics such as these. I also whole heartedly agree with your statement "The spanish believed that they had the devine right to conquer." This alone is evidence enough to support your argument. While there are some who would dispute labeling this expansion a conquest, I think we shouldn't forget the fact that in the spanish minds it was. They saw it as their right to consume "empty" lands and remove the obstacles, be it natives or nature, that stood in their way.
ReplyDelete