A mental cheer went through my head as I was reading on page 28 about how the Mayans were able to successfully oppose the Spaniards for almost 20 years. I found myself repulsed and continuously cheering against the Spanish as if the fight for "Indian" independence were still going on today.
Throughout this chapter I was saddened to read about the destruction of indigenous land, culture and people. The colonial administration seemed surprisingly weak and unorganized for something that was able to carry on as long as it did. The intricate structure of the administration including the Council of the Indies and Viceroyalty described on page 29 shows just how vulnerable the colonial administration was. Each of these branches was put in to place to enforce rules administered by the Crown, but with the King and country so far away the administrators in the colonies were not ever held accountable for their actions or lack of enforcement of the rules set in place. "The phrase 'Obedezco perl no cumplo' ('I obey but I do not comply') summarized this attitude." Control was hard to keep as illustrated throughout this chapter. The King's literal sale office of positions to the highest bidder is one example of how the quality of persons in charge was not an important factor. Money was seen as the most important factor in colonial office. This form of colonial administration lasted until 1700. Even after 1700 the battle for control, whether on a royal or common level, was in a constant state of change. The economic and social structure was poor and always on a trial and error basis. Reading the seemingly endless forms of social structure and family influence in Chapter 3, I was amazed at the many different types of governance that existed.
Throughout these three centuries I was fascinated to find how dependent the Spaniards were on the Indians. Over these 300 years there seemed to be a constant battle between the Spaniards and Indians. The Spaniards expected work from the Indians as well as religious conversion and assimilation into the new colonial society. The Spanish were always wanting the indigenous people to work more and harder for them while also trying to solve the problem of inhumane treatment and the dying off of those same people. With the Spanish wanting more labor, food and other services from the Indians it left little to no resources for the Indians to provide for themselves and their own families. Keeping their pre-conquest identities was not any easy task for the post-conquest Indians and their ancestors. The battle for identity or survival was a daily choice to make in this colonial society for both Indians and Europeans alike. Page 37 illustrates the issue of personal identity vs. being part of a group for many persons in the colonies of Mexico. People's status and meaning was found simply in what they did and how they were able to benefit the Crown. Although the people were important parts of the whole, as individuals they were not valued.
The last thing I found rather interesting was how easily the Spaniards were able to plot the Indians against one another. After all on page 45, "Indian" was a term coined by the Spaniards. The indigenous people had separate names for each group or tribe. Even if the Spanish identified them as all the same, the "Indians" still saw each other as different groups. This division made it easy for the Spaniards to employ help from one Indian group while trying to quell a rebellion amongst another "Indian" group. While both of these indigenous people were trying to regain their post-conquest identities or simply make their way in the new world, they were going about it in different ways. One, trying to rebel by fighting against the Spaniards, the other trying to help the Spaniards by quelling that rebellion in hopes of getting something in return.
The Spanish though unorganized and seemingly weak, was still able to conquer and (sort of) control the Indian population.
I would second your ideas here. It seems as though the Mexican and Central American people had a very organized and successful civilization without the help of the Spanish, whatsoever. They had an amazing agricultural system, political structure, and army, much like the Spanish had. And yet, when the Spanish arrived, they instantly decided they were the superior group and “took the natives under their wing.” And in doing so, they ran the economy, agriculture and success of the Mexicans into the ground. The Spanish crops ran out many native plants and led to their extinction, the new masses of livestock combined with the lack of fencing led to the depletion of crops and grasslands, and the new technology brought massive land erosion. It seems as though all the things that were supposed to make life in New Spain better actually made it worse and harmed the economy.
ReplyDeleteYou also mentioned the lack of effective and efficient government that plagued New Spain, and I would agree with your point that, for a nation supposedly so strong, they left a lot to be desired in terms of strong management of New Spain. Despite the Crown’s attempts at regulating and controlling the colonies failed due in part to the vast distance between them and the mother country as well as disloyal officials in the colonies who would either turn a blind eye to illegal practices or join in them for profit.
With all of this considered, it’s interesting to look back at the initial blog topic we had about what makes a civilization a civilization. If we go by the typical standards, one could make an argument that the Mexicans had a more successful civilization than the one implemented by the Spaniards.
And now you know why I selected that question as our first blog topic. ☺
DeleteOne thing that has been a point of contention for me is the conquest of Mexico itself. I cannot help but admire the brilliance and charisma of Cortes and his ability to take down an empire that by all accounts should have squashed him like a bug. The political game that was played in the beginning was nothing short of masterful and certainly worthy of further study. If history is any note for the now long defunct Aztec state, if you're going to conquer someone, it might be a good idea to make sure that your "loyal" subjects actually like you or even respect your authority.
ReplyDeleteBut let's not be foolish, the Spanish made just as many mistakes as the Aztecs if not more so. As you mention, there was a power struggle between the Viceroy and the Council of the Indies that lead to roadblocks in lines of communication and interpretation. In effect, the government bodies suffered or prospered with varying degrees of anonymity. Bureaucracy definitely has that tendency to make things far more complicated and difficult then need be (just look at how bad today's Congress struggles in passing even the simplest of legislation). The destruction of Native culture and practices should not be taken lightly. That was the most monstrous that the Spanish could ever do. As Dr. Gannon pointed out, what better way to show these people you're in charge by building your stuff on top of their stuff. It reminds me of Adolf Hitler's attempts to completely eradicate all mediums of art and culture in the final days of Nazi controlled Paris.
The conquests of Cortes were certainly brilliant in terms of the vastly complicated chessboard that contained a litany of career and life ending moves. Even though Mexico was conquered, the native spirit was never truly conquered. As we will no doubt learn later, Spain eventually became a laughing stock as a world power and this weakness lead to a wave of revolutions in South America. Viva La Mexico!
Of course, it's easier to see all of this in hindsight than it would have been at the time, in terms of Spain's decline. We tend to look at the English defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 as the"beginning of the end" for Spain. But at the time, the Spanish were undaunted, and immediately set about building a new fleet to attack England once more. Now, we know that Spain would never recapture the dizzying heights of power that they achieved in the earlier sixteenth century; at the time, however, Spain had no to believe that their power would decline so steeply relative to their European competitors. It must have been difficult for the Spanish elite to fully grasp that transition, and will lead to some of the colonial difficulties that we'll see in the mid to late 1700s.
DeleteIt will be very interesting once we reach the beginning of the 19th century and that moment when everyone (referring to Europe) realized how weakened Spain had become. Life lesson 1: if a country's currency is based from silver, don't flood the economic market with silver.
Delete"Obedezco perl no cumplo' ('I obey but I do not comply').
ReplyDeleteWas literally the impact that they Crown from Spain had on its new Spanish colonies. The people in charge like Cortes knew little to nothing would happen because the crown was so far away in Spain. They also knew that news only traveled as fast as a month. I think that others took his lead in this way of thinking. This is they way the Spanish got away of their many immoral acts against the Mexican Indian peoples they were seeking to convert religiously and culturally. If the crown was closer it might have been able to control some of the acts that happened against the Mexican Indians.