Do you know about - Culture in conflict - The Tragedy of the Discovery of the New World
Campaign Financing! Again, for I know. Ready to share new things that are useful. You and your friends.Of course, every person "knows" that the discovery of the New World began in 1492. Every
schoolchild learns the sing-song verse "in 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue," in the
first or second grade; but this verse begs the query of whether or not Columbus
discovered America. There are many claims to earlier "discovers" of the New World,
from the Vikings to the English, to the antique Greeks and the Portuguese. Even more
fundamentally, did any of these purported "discovers" legitimately survey anyone - after all,
there was a prosperous series of Indian nations already existent in the New World at the time
of Columbus' coming in 1492. [1]
How is Culture in conflict - The Tragedy of the Discovery of the New World
Cristobal Colon or Christopher Columbus: which shall it be? Are there two ways
of seeing at the same event, or are we forever constrained to see the world from one or
another point of view? Can we see, good yet, can we know, what it is like to survey the
world through an additional one set of eyes; to experience life in a way we never before imagined?
This is the central crux of the encounter of the New World: two radically different
cultures intersecting at a time when the Spanish were reclaiming territories lost to Islam,
and actively seeing for routes to the East, an East that promised commodities that were
in short supply in Spain. At the same time, in the Americas, the culture of the Mexica
was increasing through a series of conquests over other local or regional tribes. This
cultural expansion produced a powerful, affluent culture that was in some respects, more
advanced than that of Spain. Never before had an encounter like this occurred; and never
before were two cultures so ill-equipped to handle such a meeting.
There have been many theories advanced to elucidate the troops foremost up to and
during the conquest; too many certainly, to list in a short paper. Some of these theories
seem to resonate good with my discovery of life in Mexico than others, and I will choose
these to discuss. But before I begin such a discussion, it seems approved to step back
and enumerate the ways in which cultures have successfully crossed paths without producing
the devastating effects witnessed in the Americas.
Jerry Bentley, in his book Old World Encounters: Cross-Cultural Contacts and
Exchanges in Pre-Modern Times, discusses the issue of cultural experience and conversion
before the discovery of America. He theorizes that three forms of cultural transfer can
occur: voluntary conversions, conversions which are achieved through economic,
political or collective pressure and conversion which occur by assimilation. [2]
Voluntary conversions occur where the prospects of alliance with a foreign power
bestows an economic or political benefit to an existing ruling class, and are usually
preceded by a merchant class which establishes an "outpost" within the new culture. Of
course, there are gradations to the voluntary nature of conversions, and oftentimes, a
military campaign will persuade population to accept a new culture. These less voluntary
means of conversion begin to take on the aspect of a conversion for political, social, or
economic pressure. Similarly, differential taxation schemes, limitations on access to
religious services, closure or destruction of temples, churches and shrines, all contribute
to the "less voluntary" aspects of conversion. [3]
Where conversions occur due to economic, political, or collective pressure, these are
generally carried out at the societal level, rather than at the personal level. The suspect for
the conversion at the societal level is fairly easy to understand; it is more efficient to
convert large groups of population rather than converting population one at a time. The primary
method of establishing this new culture is through societal structures, such as: new
temples, places of worship, civic buildings, rules, and transfer of government
officials. Despite these structures, many conversions of this type seem to lack
authenticity, with population backsliding into their old habits and customs. Over time, as
cultural pressures for adaptation continue, large groups can finally adopt a new
culture. [4]
The final type of conversion that of assimilation ordinarily occurs when new
groups are isolated from their former culture and are gradually subsumed into the new
culture. In point of fact, the author states that very few types of cultural conversions can
be isolated as one of these three individually, but that a process of syncretism occurs
where elements all three types of conversion are present at one time. Nor does the
process of conversion occur seamlessly, or within a vacuum. Very often there is
resistance to the conversion which takes the form of violent protests or uprisings,
passivity, and attacks on new governmental structures or practices. [5]
In the most prosperous forms of cultural conversion, the element of time is crucial.
In order for cultures to interact and merge, an thorough period of time, usually taking
several hundred years, is required. Where time is not granted, conversion must rely
increasingly on troops force, and/or economic and political means to bring about
change. [6]
With an historical background of conquest in mind, we can jaunt to the
conquest of the Americas. As we know, this conquest was ended in less than one
hundred years, lending credence to Bentley's theories of successful, voluntary
conversions taking place over long periods of time. The conquest of the Americas was
not voluntary, and was not undertaken to gain assent from the existing culture. In
addition, force was brought to bear on the native culture in the form of social, economic,
and religious changes that imposed new rules the native populations. [7]
What types of men were the leaders of the two cultures: Columbus and Cortes,
Moctezuma and Cuauhtémoc? Did their personalities somehow shape the events that
were to take place? Were these men microcosms of the cultures which they represented,
and if so, how did their personalities affect the way in which these cultures clashed?
Cristobal Colon was a life-long seaman. He had an uncanny knack for
navigation, honed over the years on trips through the Mediterranean, and in perusal of
maps, navigational aids and study. He was persistent, dogged and fearless. He could
inspire men to succeed him, and was sagacious sufficient to reserve data when
necessary. That he was motivated to a clear extent by the lure of fortune seems evident,
but his desire for riches to finance the recapture of the Holy Land is often overlooked by
today's scholars. [8]
Tzvetan Todorov, in his book The Conquest of America: The query of the
Other, believes that Columbus was a discoverer at heart: he was delighted by the new
"things" that he saw in this land. Colon's diaries come alive when he speaks of the new
flora and fauna; they seem less piquant when speaking of the inhabitants of this New
World. It is only when Columbus mentions the inhabitants as newly encountered, that
they seem most alive. On first seeing the natives he remarks that "They were all very
well made, stout in body and very comely of countenance," (page 36) [9] Once he has
lived with them awhile, they become less important, and finally, they become almost
objects "These population have the same natures and the same customs as those whom we
have encountered hitherto," (page 36) [10] Ultimately, Columbus cannot identify with the
Indians; they are too unlike the Europeans. We see the gradual erosion of Columbus'
admiration of their corporal qualities, and a sort of unconcern set in, until he can condone
the slavery of these people. "The conveyors could be paid in cannibal slaves, fierce but
well-made fellows of good understanding, which men, wrested from their inhumanity,
will be, we believe, the best slaves that ever were," (page 47). [11]
It is as if Columbus could not bridge the gap that existed in the middle of the natives and
the Europeans: the two groups were far apart in their customs, traditions, and beliefs.
Because he could not bridge that gap, Columbus perceived the indigenous peoples as
being somewhat less human than the "civilized" population of Europe. This attitude was
adopted, unfortunately, by many of the Europeans that would arrive in the next hundred
years.
Cortes was a much separate man than Colon, more inclined to activity than
contemplation, but the attitude of viewing the Indians as somehow less than human can
been seen in Cortes as well. Both Columbus and Cortes kept texts which traced their
journeys in the New World. Columbus' diaries read as a travel-log at times, and are
marked by a sense of discovery and wonder. When he mentions the management of
these new-found colonies, or his developing concern concerning the indigenous people, his
writing becomes somewhat strained and distant. Cortes, on the other hand has a much
different purpose to his writing: he seeks to elucidate his actions and magnify his claims to
the land of the Mexica.
From the beginning of his journey, Cortes adopts an attitude that he is acting on
behalf of Charles; in fact, he was acting on his own behalf, and informed Charles of his
actions and decisions after the fact. Very early in his meeting with Moctezuma's agents,
Cortes says that he "had come to this land by Your Majesty's commands, and the
principal thing of which I had been ordered to give an account was of Moctezuma and his
great city...," (pages 79 - 80) [12], which of course, was untrue, since Charles did not
know of Cortes' actions. Cortes recognized early on that stretching the truth could have
several benefits: on the one hand, in dealing with events at Spain, it was often good to
act first, and beg forgiveness later, especially if the begging was accompanied by massive
amounts of treasure. On the other hand, in dealing with the indigenous peoples, Cortes
often stretched the truth to his own benefit as evidenced by his behavior to a local
chieftain in the town of Caltanmi. "So as not to offend him and for fear that some
calamity might befall my exertion and my journey, I dissembled as best I could and told
him that very soon I would have Moctezuma order him to give the gold and all that he
owned," (page 56) [13].
To frame this behavior as it applied to the conquest in general, we once again turn
to Tzvetan Todorov, in his book The Conquest of America: The query of the Other,
for explanations. Todorov believes that Cortes had a nimble mind that recognized
opportunities when he saw them. Rather than having formalized plans advanced for
every step of the conquest, Cortes improvised, and improvised brilliantly, to enable the
defeat of a seemingly invincible enemy. Recognizing that the Mexica made enemies
among any of the subjugated and/or hostile tribes, Cortes constantly played one side
against the other when dealing with the Indians. By playing each tribe against the other,
and by his improvisational troops maneuvers, Cortes gained allies in his quest to
overthrow the Mexica. [14]
Similarly, when Cortes learned of myths surrounding his men and his person, he
utilized these myths to keep the Mexica off-balance. We turn to Cortes' account of the
meeting in the middle of Cortez and Moctezuma for validation of this idea, (pages 85 - 86),
where Moctezuma says of Quetzalcoatl,
...And he returned to his native land and after many years came again, by which
time all those who had remained were married to native women and had built
villages and raised children. And when he wished to lead them away again they
would not go nor even admit him as their chief; and so he departed. And we have
always held that those who descended from him would come and conquer this
land and take us as their vassals. So because of the place from which you claim to
come, namely, from where the sun rises, and the things you tell us of the great
lord or king who sent you here, we believe and are clear that he is our natural
lord, especially as you say that he was known to us for some time. ... I replied to
all he said as I idea most fitting, especially in making him believe that Your
Majesty was he whom they were expecting... (Italics mine) [15]
Whether or not Moctezuma believed that Cortes and his men were representatives
of Quetzalcoatl, or the god himself is irrelevant; what was foremost is that Cortes turned
this belief to his advantage, and that it kept Moctezuma guessing for a long sufficient time
that Cortes could enter Mexico City, and place Moctezuma under house arrest. Cortes'
frequent route changes and demands, alternatively acting as an honored guest and then as
an offended someone of rank, legitimately disconcerted Moctezuma and his allies.
Todorov believes that Cortes' behavior can be explained by his capability to act
spontaneously, establish solutions on the fly, and seize control of a situation approximately at
will. This set of personality characteristics is the direct succeed of Cortes' capability to think
abstractly, which Todorov believes is a direct succeed of the Spaniard's use of written
language, and which fosters the use of abstract thought. [16]
The Spanish use of writing was initially puzzling to the Indians. They witnessed
the capability of the Spaniards to control their troop movements and instructions across great
distances. They did not originally associate the capability to control troop movements and
directives to writing, but they finally recognized that the Spanish passed pieces of
paper back and forth, which somehow conveyed thoughts or commands, to one another.
In Bernal Diaz' account of the conquest, he highlights an part in the battle for
Tenochtitlan, where Cuauhtémoc's ambassadors ask for a written acknowledgement of
their meeting (page 393):
Although this message was thoroughly explained to them by our interpreters, the
three chieftains asked Cortes for a letter, not because it would be understood but
because they knew that when we sent a message or command it was always on
paper - which they call amales in their language - as a sign that it was an order.
[17]
In addition, Todorov believes that the Spanish mind-set was influenced by years
of war with the Muslims, which taught them to act fast and forcefully in battle. This
mindset of approximately constant warfare produced an additional one succeed which was to enumerate the
conquest of the New World: an approximately fanatical belief that the souls of heathens should
be converted to Christianity. The belief that the souls of Indians should be converted to
Christianity was also shared by Columbus, who hoped that the conversion of the Indians
would help restore the souls "lost" to the Muslims while the crusades. [18]
Todorov does not comment on a talent which Cortes possessed, and which may
have contributed to the rapid downfall of the empire: that of negotiating. While Todorov
points out Cortes' habits of dissembling, he does not view these habits as a form of bluff
to be used in a negotiation. Cortes was, in effect, seeing for weaknesses which he could
exploit, which is a form of negotiation. In every meeting that Cortes had with the
Tlascalans and the Mexica, he made sure that both parties attend the meeting, and
encouraged both parties to vie with one an additional one for his support. In effect, Cortes is
bluffing by having both parties attend a meeting and by playing one off against the other.
He then approved the offer that best suits his needs. In his letters to Charles, Cortes
comments on his tactics for dealing with the Tlascala (pages 69 - 70) "When I saw the
discord and animosity in the middle of these two peoples (i.e. The Tlascala and the Mexica) I was
not a diminutive pleased, for it seemed to supplementary my purposes considerably; consequently, I
might have the opening of subduing them more quickly..." [19]
Similarly, Todorov does not seem to talk that the Tlascalans, and to a
limited extent the Mexica, were able to dissemble (albeit to a lesser extent than was
Cortes). To elucidate this point, bear in mind that the Tlascala originally attacked Cortes,
and then made excuses for their behavior when it was apparent that they could not defeat
the Spanish. [20]
How did Moctezuma loose his empire with such an fantastic benefit in
manpower and material? That Moctezuma vacillated in his dealings with Cortes is
beyond dispute. In his letters to Charles, Cortes mentions Moctezuma's approximately pleading
requests to remain clear of Tenochtitlan, telling him that the "land was scarce of food and
the roads were bad; furthermore, the city was built entirely on the water and I might only
enter it by canoe," (page 79) [21]. Each request from Moctezuma was followed by a hoard
of treasure, which sent a very clear signal to the Spaniards; there is more where this came
from. At other times, Moctezuma told Cortes that he should jaunt to Tenochtitlan, and
these messages were followed by supplementary diplomacy, stalling, or ambush.
It is possible that Moctezuma originally idea the Spanish to be some sort of
semi-divine beings, which caused some of the vacillation he displayed, although to be
sure, scholarly idea is mixed on this point. It is equally possible that his belief in the
divine nature of the Spaniards changed while the policy of the conquest, as his
conversation with Cortes would seem to indicate. "See that I am of flesh and blood like
you and all other men, and I am mortal and substantial," (page 86) [22]. It is likely
however, that he was simply confused by the Spaniards and his dealings with them, and
was waiting for a sign from his gods, or some advice from his priests, which was not
forthcoming. It is also likely that Moctezuma understood the technological superiority of
the Spaniards, and was somewhat awed by their weaponry and their horses. At the same
time, Moctezuma grossly underestimated the animosity that the conquered and enemy
tribes held toward the Mexica; this mistake was to prove costly.
Turning again to Todorov, we are reminded that the customs of the Mexica were
based on a series of ritual practices which defined their interaction within their society,
with their allies, and their enemies. These ritual practices were fairly common
throughout Mesoamerica, and formed the basis for approved responses among the
tribes. Quite simply, Cortes and the Spaniards did not play by these rules; they did not
act agreeing to the ritual methods: they improvised. This improvisation caught
Moctezuma and all of the tribal chieftains by surprise. Consider for example, that Cortes
not only took Moctezuma hostage within his own city, but that just weeks earlier, Cortes
used the same tactic at Tascalteca. It is very likely that Moctezuma knew of this event, as
well as the slaying of many of the Tascaltecan chieftains, but yet he acquiesced in
becoming a hostage. He could not understand the behavior of the Spaniards; they were
too "other." [23]
Todorov once again offers an explanation of this behavior, and this explanation
has to do with the symbology of writing. The Mexica lacked a faultless theory of
writing, and used a partially-developed pictographic system. The lack of a fully
developed writing theory caused the Mexica to think in a very literal-minded fashion,
and prevented them from developing advanced abstract reasoning. For all intents and
purposes, the Mexica were very exact to the point of not dissembling, even if the
situation warranted. In this respect, they were outmatched by the Spaniards, who were
not averse to stretching the truth if when it superior them. [24]
Moctezuma was therefore over-matched in weaponry and tactics, idea in
ritualized, predictable ways, was literal minded and unlikely to dissemble, and was
confounded by Spanish ingenuity. Unfortunately for him, Cortes was able to capitalize
on each of these shortcomings. [25]
Moctezuma is recovering his credit in contemporary Mexico to a clear degree; he
is no longer viewed as an inept or clueless leader. In the case of Cuauhtémoc, however,
his credit has never been sullied, and he is viewed as a brave, but largely doomed,
warrior. Where Moctezuma was seen as vacillating or weak in his dealings with the
Spaniards, Cuauhtémoc is seen as a strong leader who led an efficient resistance to the
Spaniards for a period of nearly one year. Indeed, he reflected the will of the Mexica
rulers, and would not surrender to Cortes until the leadership group agreed to surrender.
In fact, Cuauhtémoc and his advisers rejected any previous offers of surrender from
Cortes. Cuauhtémoc was seen as the embodiment of the warrior spirit by the Mexica,
and adapted to the Spaniards' methods of warfare throughout the battle for Tenochtitlan.
Diaz mentions that the Mexica employed new tactics while the nine months of the war,
including the use of feints and ambushes on land; the prolonged destruction of the bridges
and causeways surrounding the city; the launching of attacks from the construction roofs; the
use of ambushes, via canoes, in the canals surrounding the city; and the use of hand-to
hand combat as a means of neutralizing the Spanish cavalry. [26]
The use of these tactics by Cuauhtémoc implies growth and development by the
Mexica, and seems to discredit in some ways, Todorov's contention that the Mexica were
over-matched by the Spaniard's abilities to think abstractly and react fast to
situations. In point of fact, Todorov is largely silent about Cuauhtémoc, and his abilities
to react to Spanish tactics. Where Todorov does mention Cuauhtémoc, it is in the famous
reply to one of Cortes' preliminary offers for a truce "Do not talk to us any more about peace:
words are for women, arms for men!" (page 91) [27]. Todorov takes this to mean that
Cuauhtémoc is a warrior and that words (and hence) language are for women: Todorov
sees this as a bit of irony that Cuauhtémoc and the Mexica are defeated by words and
language. As we have seen, Cuauhtémoc, while not possessing a command of written or
spoken language which is equal to that of the Spaniards, can learn from the conquistadors
and turn his tactics, where appropriate.
Todorov seems to think that this sense of otherness, a sense of being alien is the
reason that the conquest happened; that the Spanish and the Mexica were too different
from each other, that ultimately, neither side could grasp that the other was different, yet
for all that, each side was human. He supplementary believes that the use of symbol, writing and
language by the Spanish resulted in the remarkably swift overthrow of the Aztec empire.
[28]
I agree with Todorov's appraisal of the sense of otherness: I have witnessed this
sense of alien-ness myself. But I don't think that we can attribute the fall of the Aztec
empire to the first-rate use of symbol, writing, and language by the Spanish. Certainly,
the Spaniards' mastery of these concepts played a part in the overthrow of the empire, but
we must avoid the mistake of devaluing the civilization of the Mexica when formulating
our thesis of the conquest.
The Mexica, like the Spanish, were the goods of centuries of warfare, and
emerged from this state of near-constant battle as the pre-eminent power in Mesoamerica.
That their power was waning at the time of the Spanish invasion seems to be
acknowledged by many scholars. The reasons for the decline were numerous: a
metropolis that was dependent on prolonged tribute from outlying lands to supply
adequate food and man-made goods; a tributary theory that was overtaxing the ability
of vassal states to furnish foodstuffs in sufficient quantity; the use of sacrificial victims,
taken from vassal states that were surprisingly similar in religious, social, and ideological
beliefs to the Mexica; and the gradual diminishment of available sacrificial victims due to
their assimilation into Mexica culture, all play a role in the slow but steady deterioration
of the Mexica empire. Yet for all their seeming diminishment, the Mexica Empire built
cities that rivaled those in Europe, produced art that was every bit as fantastic as that in
the Old World, and had a culture as fully advanced as that of the Spanish. And yet, for
all this, they lost the conquest. [29]
It would be easy, therefore to establish a theory that portrays the Mexica as
hopelessly overmatched by the Spaniards, and to see the Mexica as "noble savages." In
fact, many theories advanced in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries painted such
a picture. To do so, I believe, is at once to diminish the achievements of the Mexica
culture, while at the same time attempting to whitewash some of its more, to modern
sensibilities, gruesome aspects. In effect, such theories tend to look at the world as a
series of dichotomies: Spanish versus Mexica; culturally advanced versus culturally
backward; Christian versus non-Christian religion; written versus oral. The world,
however, is not composed of a series of dichotomies; it is much more complicated and
challenging than simple right/wrong, yes/no answers. [30]
What then, are we to make of the conquest: how can we talk this question?
What caused the downfall of the Mexica at the hands of the Spanish? Ultimately, our
answer must be tentative, not something that we can say definitively, and must be
composed of a estimate of pieces, and not just one or two simple answers. The time
element of the conquest was too compressed; there was legitimately not sufficient time for the
two cultures to know each other, to establish side-by-side. As we recall from Bentley's
book, time is required for true cultural comprehension to occur, if it occurs at all. Next,
we need to look at the culture of religious and ideological intolerance, which was abetted
by years of warfare by both the Spanish and Mexica cultures, as contributing to the
conflict that occurred. We must talk that both the Spanish and Mexica viewed
the "other," as different, as somehow not fully human. Both these cultures emerged
victorious over years of disagreement with "others" whom they conquered, both in terms of
religion and in terms of ideology. Turning to the query of language, we must
acknowledge that the first-rate use of language and writing on the part of the Spanish
played a part in organizing troop movement and communication. Intimately allied to this
use of language and writing was the capability of Cortes to manipulate meetings and Mexica
allies to his advantage. We must also credit Cortes' unique capability to think on his feet,
which is not an possible capability in Spanish thinking as Todorov suggests, but a
personality characteristic on the part of one man, that would play an ample part in the
history of conquest. simply put, Cortes was the right man at the right time for this
conquest. We must not, as Moctezuma did, underestimate the enmity of the subjugated
tribes against the Mexica. Cortes' skillful seduction of these tribes helped sway the
balance of power away from the Mexica and toward the Spanish. Ultimately, this
additional manpower enable Cortes' small band of men to overcome a decided advantage
on the part of the Mexica. Finally, we should note the technological benefit that the
Spaniards enjoyed while the conquest: iron weapons, firepower, horses, the wheel, and
writing. Despite all this, the Mexica adapted and fought the Spaniards to a standstill for
almost nine months.
I think I understand my countryman, Christopher Columbus, somewhat better
than I did before my time in Mexico. I understand that he was a man who wanted to do
something good, but political necessity, poor decisions, and circumstances beyond his
control led to something far worse than he intended. I think I also understand the psyche
of the Mexican people: a psyche that is part Mexica and part Spanish, and is studying to
integrate the two sides in a way that was not done at the time of the conquest. The key of
course, is understanding, and comprehension does not come at once, or without an effort
to accept the "other" as both human and different. seeing back some years later, I
wonder who was changed more by this assignment, and whether or not I was the helper
or the helped?
Selected Bibliography
1. Larner, J.P., North American Hero? Christopher Columbus 1702 - 2002.
Proceeding of the American Philosophical Society, 1993. 137(1): p. 46-63.
2. Bentley, J.H., Old World Encounters: Cross-Cultural Contacts and Exchanges in
Pre-modern Times. 1993, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 216.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Schwartz, S.B., ed. Victors and Vanquished: Spanish and Nahua Views of the
Conquest of Mexico. 2000, Bedford St. Martins: Boston. 259.
8. Watts, P.M., Prophecy and Discovery: On the Spiritual Origins of Christopher
Columbus's "Enterprise of the Indies". The American Historical Review, 1985.
90(1): p. 73-102.
9. Todorov, T., The Conquest of America: The query of the Other. 1999,
Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press. 274.
24
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. Cortes, H., The Second Letter, in Letters from Mexico, A. Pagden, Editor. 1986,
Yale University Press: New Haven. P. 47-91; 459-469.
13. Ibid.
14. Todorov, T., The Conquest of America: The query of the Other.
15. Cortes, H. The Second Letter, in Letters from Mexico.
16. Todorov, T., The Conquest of America: The query of the Other.
17. Diaz, B., The Voyage; Dona Marina's Story; Peace with Tlascala: Embassies
from Mexico: The Capture of Mexico, in The Conquest of New Spain. 1972,
Penguin Classics: London. P. 57-84; 85-87; 166-188; 353-413.
18. Todorov, T., The Conquest of America: The query of the Other.
19. Cortes, H. The Second Letter, in Letters from Mexico.
20. Todorov, T., The Conquest of America: The query of the Other.
21. Cortes, H. The Second Letter, in Letters from Mexico.
22. Ibid.
23. Todorov, T., The Conquest of America: The query of the Other.
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid.
26. Diaz, B. The Voyage; Dona Marina's Story; Peace with Tlascala: Embassies
from Mexico: The Capture of Mexico, in The Conquest of New Spain.
27. Todorov, T., The Conquest of America: The query of the Other.
28. Todorov, T., The Conquest of America: The query of the Other.
29. Clendinnen, I., Aztecs. 1991, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 397.
30. Stern, S.J., Paradigms of Conquest: History, Historiography, and Politics.
Journal of Latin American Studies, 1992. 24(Quincentenary Supplement: The
Colonial and Post Colonial Experience. Five Centuries of Spanish and
Portuguese America): p. 1-34.
No comments:
Post a Comment