The New World Flashcards
1492:
Europe Encountered the
New World
A Divisive Concept:
1 Christopher Columbus
We used to learn that …
– people thought Earth was flat,
whereas Columbus thought it was
round
– Columbus discovered America,
and America is #1; therefore,
Columbus is #1.
– discovery was kind of a miracle,
almost religious
– We have holidays, cities, & even
a country named after him.
– old school bottom line:
Columbus was a great man, a
hero, maybe even a saint
A Divisive Concept:
2 Christopher Columbus
But now some historians say …
– people before Columbus had
already “discovered” America
– Columbus wasn’t even
actually the first European
here (Vikings)
– Columbus was indirectly
responsible for deaths of
millions of Native Americans,
some call it a genocide
– CC was racist & religious
chauvinist
– a more recent bottom line:
Columbus was not a great
man; maybe he was even a bad
man
Who is right about
Columbus?
Those who say …
– Columbus opened the New World for European
settlement, culture, &
religion.
– European Christianity
was superior to Native
American religion.
– Columbus didn’t intend
to kill millions, so it
wasn’t a true genocide. Plus, Euro civ. was more
advanced, an upgrade.
or those who say…
– Columbus brought disease, slavery, & death.
– Columbus was
intolerant of Native
American culture,
especially the religion.
– After Columbus,
millions of indigenous
people died & entire
civilizations were wiped out. Some historians
describe it as genocide.
Columbus Facts
Religion was important
to Columbus and to Spain
– high levels of
missionary zeal
– Reconquista and the
15th century crusading
movement
– rise of the Ottoman
threat in the eastern
Mediterranean
– rivalry between
Portugal & Spain
guided by 2 sources: the Bible
and Marco Polo’s Il Milione
– 1st voyage in 1492-3
– 2nd voyage in 1493-4
– 3rd voyage in 1498-1500
– 4th voyage in 1502-1504
– great navigator & sailor
– autocratic style made him
unpopular leader
– inflexible views: he was certain
he had found India & China; he
was certain God was guiding him
– came to believe he was God’s
prophet promised in in Book of
Isiah
Aztecs (sometimes “Mexica)
migrated from north
– borrowed Olmec,
Maya, & Toltec ides
– military aristocracy
– Tenochtitlan was the
capital
– built empire by
subjugating weaker
tribes & demanding
tribute
Mexica/Aztec Religion
polytheistic
– included human
sacrifice
– operated on Mayan
calendric system
– some of the gods were:
– Tlaloc
– Huiztilopochtli
– Quetzalcoatl
– BUT what we know of it
comes mostly from hostile
Christian sources
Moctezuma II (Montezuma)
(d. 1520)
– last long-term Aztec
emperor
– probably came from
priestly elite rather than
warrior elite
– hostile expansion might
have made Aztec enemies
more likely to cooperate with Spanish
– apparently did not
know what to make of the
Spanish or how to
confront them
– killed in 1520
1519-1521: Cortes Conquered
the Aztecs
– fall 1518: Cortes organized fleet
– Spring 1519: landed at Tabasco;
later est. Veracruz as capital;
gathered support of anti-Aztec
natives
– Fall 1519: entered & occupied
Tenochtitlan
– summer 1520: Cortes left
Tenochtitlan to fight Spanish (not
typo); Cortes returned but was
forced to flee; Moctezuma II killed
& Cuahutémoc (d. 1522) became
Aztec emperor
– late 1520: siege of Tenochtitlan
– 13 Aug. 1521: Tenochtitlan &
Aztec empire fell to Cortes;
Tenochtitlan became Mexico City
La Malinche, Doña Marina,
Malintzin (1501-1550?)
left no record of her own so
all info comes 2nd hand – more written Spanish sources than mostly oral native
sources
– born around 1500, captured or sold into slavery, given as gift to Cortes
– basically negotiated the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs/Mexica
- respected by Spanish, but not so much by natives
– had son (Martin) with Cortes; Martin was 1st recorded
mestizo child – died as early as 1528 or as late as 1550
La Malinche Today: Popular
History in Motion
some see her as first mother of modern
Mexico, a country in which most people
have Spaniard & Native blood (like
Martin Cortes)
– some argue that her real enemies were
the Aztecs
– some see her as a woman who made the
very best of a bad situation
– intellectuals & scholars see her as
someone who bridged cultures
– but in pop culture, La Malinche is a
symbol for female weakness, betrayal, &
treachery
– malinchismo: to readily adopt foreign
customs
– but, then again, Mexican feminists
argue that these negative attitudes are
the result of & justification for misogyny
in a patriarchal society
– they say disdain for Dona Marina is
”classic blaming the victim”
La Malinche Today: Popular
History in Motion
Professional historians
have neglected this historical figure, but popular history has not.
– She is not only a historical figure but also a cultural icon & literary figure.
– What happens when popular history overtakes professional history?
– What happens when the pros challenge the people? – Is there any way to bring the two together?
Bartolomé de Las Casas (d.
1566)
born into middle class
family in Spain ca 1479
– 1497: became soldier
– 1502-1512: became
conqueror-colonist with
encomienda in West
Indies
– 1512: became Christian
priest
– 1514: returned his serfs
to governor & returned to Spain
– 1515-1519: convinced
high-ranking Spanish officials to try something new vis-à-vis Indians
Bartolomé de Las Casas (d.
1566)
Bartolomé de Las Casas (d.
1566) – 1519-1522: experimented with town of free Indians in
Venezuela
– 1523: began writing Historia
de las Indias, his first major work
– wrote about treatment of
Indians & convinced some
powerful people, e.g. Charles V that things needed to change
–1544-1547: armed with Leyes Neuvas tried to build new
order in New Spain
– 1547-1558: advisor to
Charles V
– continued to advocate for
Indians until he dies in 1566
– Philip II suppressed his works
Historical Choice: Bartolomé
de Las Casas
Let’s think about this historical
choice:
– Should the historian focus on the
few heroes or the many villains?
– Can a historical figure like de
Las Casas ever be redeemed? (He
WAS a conquistador &
encomendero.) – Does a “white savior” soothe
“white guilt”/“liberal guilt?”
– Does telling the story of de Las
Casas instead of Cortes or Pizarro
promote “white savior” narratives?
– Would doing the opposite just be
more dead-white-male-bashing?
– It’s easy to say we would be like
de Las Casas, but would we have
been?
