When reading through the prologue of Steve Stern's book, I came across an interesting section which talked about the significance of the year 1492 and how it signaled the beginning of an era of strife and conflict for some (Latin America) , and ascendancy and dominance for others (Europe). Stern calls this the era of the "reconfiguration" of world history. As he mentions, before 1492 the European sphere of influence spread westwards, towards North Africa and the Middle East. Following 1492, European influence spread East, towards the Americas. He argues that this was not a result of Christopher Columbus's "discovery" of the Indies (The Caribbean) but rather that the causes leading to this reconfiguration both preceded and followed 1492, not wholly dependent on Columbus.
Due to the clashing of European and Latin American histories, there has been controversy over what the year 1492 exactly means to the different people involved. To the indigenous people of Latin America for example, this sparked an era of 'denunciation' and exploitation, taking a very anti-Spanish stance (Stern attributes this into sliding into the 'Black Legend'). Others say that this year was for the best of Latin America, with Spain providing "advancement" and modernization to an otherwise primitive societies. Which view is correct and offers the most legitimate response? I think both make some clear arguments yet by further reading through Stern's work, it would be made clear as to what exactly the year 1492 meant.
No comments:
Post a Comment