Stern & the extent of conquest

Now that we are farther along in Stern's book, it seems that his argument puts him firmly in the position of saying that yes, there was a Spanish conquest because of the dependencies that were created (45). While he acknowledges resistance vis-a-vis gaming the legal system (44), he does not see this as adaption that signifies an incomplete/ambivalent conquest a la Clendinnen. Rather, it is just a sign of the indigenous' total integration into a system designed to exploit them for labor and generally oppress them (58, 64, 86-87 and so on). I remember thinking in my previous post that Stern was working with a Marxist framework, and this proves it. When he is basing his argument wrt the impact of colonialism on historical trends of data - rather than the significance of one particular event - it is very convincing because there is less question of subjectivity. The question of the extent of conquest remains, however, because it depends on whether one agrees with Stern regarding the definition of conquest. I will have to see all the evidence Stern presents before I decide whether/how much I agree with his definition, if only in part because "conquest" is such a loaded word.