Peru’s Indian Peoples
and the Challenges of Spanish Conquest by Stern already seems to be a
pleasant reading in comparison to the other books, although I did enjoy Malintzin’s Choices. One of the first things that I like from
the book is in the Introduction when the author explains that the region of his
study is not a capital, “because Huamanga was not the capital of the Incan Empire,
its history speaks clearly about the experiences of local Andean societies –
the peasantry – without distortions imposed by the special case of Cuzco’s Inca
elite.” I like this because there that
pattern of studies generally focused on capital cities due to the more abundant
evidence in structures, items, etc; Stern however will focus on a region that
does not fit in that pattern and it makes me actually look forward to the
reading.
I also think that Stern can be related to Clendinnen because
Stern brings up the fact that the conquest did not have one specific meaning
then or now, “there was no single meaning of conquest, then, to those who prompted
its cause, but multiple paradigms, fantasies, and utopias.” So we see that this partly point to what
Clendinnen wrote about as well in the ambivalence of the conquest. Stern mentions again the ambivalence of the conquest
in the following passage, “Indians as well as Spaniards would end up enlocked
in the struggle to define what the Spanish Conquest meant, and what it might
yet turn out to mean.”
Finally I like to see the reference to Restall
as well in the bringing up of Historiography in the prologue title and in the
following passage, “It considers what the conquest of America by Spain meant to
those who lived it (“history”), and what it has meant to professional
historians who have interpreted in the twentieth century (“historiography”). I very much look forward to reading this book
for it’s focus and because the writing style seems to be the most forward, so
far, in comparison to the other books we have read.
I agree with you on several points. Stern's emphasis on Huamanga instead of Cuzco is certainly unconventional, and perhaps questionable since the major cities would offer more evidence. But it is precisely because of that reason that the book looks appealing. It will be interesting to see if the text reveals something different from previous readings.
ReplyDeleteI think your connection between Stern and Clendinnen is significant. Whereas Conrad and Demarest relied solely on the role of religion in investigating the conquest, Stern and Clendinnen appear slightly more interesting in that they seek to provide evidence through multiple elements – whether it’s political, economic, religious, cultural, or military dimensions. That’s not to diminish the importance of Conrad and Demarest, but other possibilities deserve to be scrutinized.
It’s also refreshing that Stern confronts the relationship between history and historiography. I imagine Restall would agree that as Stern attempts to examine this historical event, he will inevitably appraise other established interpretations. He states this, too: “In this sense, our extensive discussion of paradigms of conquest in ‘history’ has already laid a groundwork for evaluating ‘historiography’” (p. xlvii). In this regard, whatever conclusions he forms will either agree, refute, or expand on other recent historical analysis.