Normally I don't read prologues or introductions because I would rather dive straight into the book. However, I took the time to look this one over, and I found it to be very interesting for a number of reasons. One aspect that I enjoyed the most about Stern's prologue was that he actually referenced a few of the books that we have read in the class so far (what Prof. Bristol mentions as a possible topic for this weeks post). Another is the difference between history and historiography.
The first time I noticed Stern's citation of our readings was on page "xl" where Stern discusses the Catholic faith. Afterwards, he continues to cite Clendennin and few more instances. Much of the prologue is dedicated to the discussion of the trials that took place in Mexico and Peru of "illegal" indigenous idolatry, which is also what Clendennin focused on, but in the Yucatan. Although this particular book is about Peru's Indian peoples, I found it helpful for Stern to include the many examples and extensive discussion/comparison of the two regions (Mexico and Peru). Whoever reads this text, though, would only completely understand and appreciate the information if they have previous knowledge, at least some, about the Spanish conquest of either region. In particular Stern mentions the Black Legend, but never really defines what it is. Someone who does not know much about he conquest might be lost in that sense. Another point that I noticed is on page "xlvi." He says, "The refusal of the issue to fade away reminds us that 1492 marks the symbolic dawn of a historical day whose sun has not yet set." The issue he is referring to is that of "establishing legitimate relationships and even unity among peoples divided by a history that blends cultural and racial diversity into relationships of unequal power." In saying that the "sun has not yet set," he is stating that the conquest is not over and continues onto this day. This refers all the way back to the beginning of the semester when we read Restall's Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest. As a class, we have focused the first half of the semester solely on the conquest of Mexico. Now that we are working our way into Peru, we will be able to discover that even there the conquest hasn't ended yet either.
Very briefly I'd like to mention my thoughts of the difference of history and historiography. Stern defines the two on page "xxvi" like this: "This essay approaches the question from the double vantage of history and historiography. 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 it in the twentieth century ("historiography"). I looked the difference up and found that history is actually a collection of past events whereas historiography is actually the study of it and its methodology. I never thought of history as simply being an event; I figured that the two words were basically interchangeable. His insight into the two gave me a better understanding of what he wants to get across in this book.
I would like to expand upon the issue of conquest that you have raised. Stern has presented another side to the argument "Was it conquest or not?" The Spanish were in search for "Utopia" a land that provided gold and mass wealth (Utopia for the conquistadors) and full of people who would willingly submit themselves to the Catholic faith. (Utopia for the Catholic priests, bishops, monks)The point being, The Spaniards were too busy fighting among themselves about what their expectations should be in the conquest (these expectations, Stern referws to as the "paradigms of conquest"(xlviii)); so busy that they never really completed the conquest.
ReplyDeleteFor the quote that you use from page xlvi. the words that stand out for me are, "...relationships of unequal power." This quote further helps the argument that the conquest was never completed. The Spanish left no form of order in Latin America. Although their notions of class and race (mestizo, mulatto, indio,)were in working order in Spain, with a political situation where the minority as opposed to the majority rule, Latin America was set up for a future of political unrest, fragmentation, civil wars, and dictatorships. These are not conclusive to a successful conquest.