The word "conquest", I say, denotes some sort of condition. “Kwer-“is supposedly the Proto-Indo-European root for the verb “to do” and the basis for words such as acquisition, quest, conquest and inquiry. Given the Latin etymology cum(together, with) quaerere (wanting, seeking, striving), and related words derived from this used in other languages, such as Spanish, Italian, and French, one will notice there are attendant notions of "desiring and/or charming", "searching and/or gaining", and, “inquiring and/or convincing", within the notion of conquest proper. This condition most definitely describes the mindset of the Spanish companies, and it also describes that of their potential native allies, as well as, African servants brought along.

In popular English usage it is most often applied to a military context, though by no means is it strictly military in significance. However, for my proposition, it is the sense of completion which is also commonly attributed to the word “conquest” which poses the most trouble. Yet, if one looks closely, the original Latin gives the sense of ongoing actions; one could very well argue that completion is an irrelevant notion for this “condition of conquest”, some might even say conquest is alive and well. The former is the basis of truth in the myth of completion when analyzed by Restall. The popular English definition itself, I believe, does a disservice, for indeed, why change the word at all? Its original meaning has morphed, and it will morph again; simply trying to use another word to define the same phenomenon does not get at the heart of the problem. What is really at issue then is if “The Spanish Conquest” can be given a revised name avoiding the popular (mis)understanding of the word conquest.

One might argue that to define words with other words is beside the point anyway. But when broken down, what has really been asked is “Can the word 'conquest' be used to describe the phenomenon "The Spanish Conquest? (Is "conquest" an appropriate description for what happened in Mesoamerica and the Andes in the sixteenth century?) And, what would be a good alternative name for the phenomenon 'The Spanish Conquest'? (Are there more appropriate terms for this phenomenon?)” Just because the word "conquest" is in the name, "The Spanish Conquest", one should not let the irony created by the popular usage of the word "conquest" in the English language disallow its suitability, in any of its meanings, to describe events which constitute the phenomenon "The Spanish Conquest". Restall himself says that Mesoamericans had different references for the phenomenon known as “The Spanish Conquest”, many having thought of it as civil war.

His entire book is aimed at redefining a phenomenon in a way closest to (natural) science as may be possible, and in the process, change antiquated notions (myths) about the phenomenon itself. I have just aimed at dispelling the myth which is the popular misunderstanding of the actual significance of the word “conquest” and its relation to “The Spanish Conquest” in a way closest to (natural) science as may be possible, but it is in the process of gurgitation and re-gurgitation of this material, and material like it, that one begins to notice that the most literal meaning of “conquest”, perhaps, best describes what was on the minds of all participants during this phenomenon. Restall himself supports this. Indeed, it is the very basis for historical materialism, that is to say, the belief that it is material gain, not ideological altruism, which drives history. This concept of historical materialism is obvious when reading: analyses of probanzas, inferred motives of the so called conquistadors, and, the thin veneer of legitimacy that is the requerimiento.

But, if I could replace the name, “The Spanish Conquest”, and give another word, one more befitting, it would be the Quechua word pachakutik (it is not a name but rather a description of a certain type of event). Pacha- means earth, land (literally time and/or space, or, more precisely, perceived reality) and ku-ti-k(a) are three suffixes combined. Each, respectively, convey: the reflexive, negation, and, potential passive or non-controlled action. With this definition it might be translated as “uncontrolled negation of my/our (the speaker’s) perceived reality”. This word should be utter able by anyone and hold the same significance as all peoples were affected, all previously held notions of reality were negated, and, no single group of people could be said to be the agentive cause.

Being that its literal meaning is actually enlightening, my position then is that use of the term “conquest” can be acceptable in trying to describe a phenomenon known as “The Spanish Conquest”, that “The Spanish Conquest” is simply a misleading name focusing too much on the adjective “Spanish”, and also, that there are more, in the sense of in addition to, appropriate terms to describe said phenomenon, such as pachakutik. It is describing the phenomenon itself, not a misleading name, which matters most, and in some contexts even the popular English usage of the word conquest makes sense.