Name:
Lecturer:
Course:
Date:
Views from both sides of the encounter of the Spanish and the Native peoples of Mexico in the early 16th Century
The 16th century history about the encounter of the native people and Spanish voyages are documented in numerous historical records. Mexico produced complex native civilization before being conquered by the Spanish during the 16th century. The Spanish conquest of the Inca Empire and Aztecs Empire of the Spanish colonization were among the significant campaigns of the time. The Inca Empire was a historical process of military conquest, which was made by the Spanish conquistadores and their indigenous allies. The Incan empire was ambushed by the Spanish soldiers and their indigenous allies. It was the first campaign that took decades of fighting to suppress the powerful empire in the Americans. Since the Spanish conquest in the 16th century, Mexico combined its long-created native civilizations with the European culture. Mexico was a colony with a high number of native populations that were more than half of the population. Thus, the biasness of some historical sources makes it difficult to understand the encounters from each side but the Mexico conquest reveals the true accounts of events.
How do the accounts differ and how do they tell the ‘same’ story?
There are diverse historical ways though which the accounts between the Spanish and native people of Mexico differ. First, there is a difference between the Aztec Empire of the Spanish conquest of Mexico and the Yucatan Spanish conquest. The Aztec conquest campaign was led by Herman and other native people of Mexico against Aztec empire and it took the shorter period. The Yucatan Spanish conquest was the longer campaign and it took place from the early 16th century to the late 16th century (Schwartz 152). The conquest campaign was against the Maya people living in the Yucatan part of Mexico and northern Central of America. Many accounts from the Aztec Empire are predominantly from Spanish. The areas that were conquered by the Spaniards were considered as part of the region which was originally known as the Hispania. The conquest campaign continued and those Aztecs who survived were prohibited from living in Mexico City and the Isles’ surroundings. The royal families were imprisoned and the last Aztecs’ emperors were imprisoned after they were defeated. The Spaniards were helped by the Tlaxcala. The Tenochtitlan received better treatment unlike the native nations and forty years after the conquest, the Tlaxcalteca had to pay same tribute to any other native society.
Secondly, the cultural historical backgrounds of both accounts differ. For instance, the ‘chicano’ was considered offensive when it was first introduced in Mexico but the native people of Mexico have since deemed its acceptance. It is vital to understand the common terms that were used in describing the Spanish or Mexican descent. The cultural identities that were commonly used to identify the Mexicans were the Mexicanos, which was shortened as the Chicanos. The term was considered insulting and it was somewhat similar to the phrase which was used such as the ‘Chinaman or the negro’. The native people of Mexico decided to embrace the term into an informal way. Additionally, other racial terms were differently used in the two accounts in identifying the native people of Mexico and the Spanish.
Both accounts tell the same story in the following ways. First, Mexico’s legends reflect on Native American and the influences of the Spanish. Many people in Mexico trace their ancestry from Native Americans to the Spanish people who controlled Mexico for three centuries. The legends, religions and myths of Mexicans are a combination of Indian tradition and European influences. The Indian villagers especially the Maya people believed that the ancient rain spirits were controlled by Jesus Christ who was accompanied by Virgin Mary. Mexico was a land of diverse cultures even before the Europeans arrived in Mexico. People who shared the same languages such as the Nahua family dominated the north while the Myan who were the native people of Mexico were widely spread in the south. Migration, war as well as trade made people of diverse cultures to share cultures of Mexico and thus the same cultural language.
Secondly, the native people of Mexico started sharing the same culture. When the Aztecs of northern Mexico started the conquest wars to build an empire in the central part of Mexico, they absorbed the religious practices of the conquered people. The legends and religious practices of the people of North Mexico were adopted in the southern part of Mexico and they influenced the Maya family of the Indian people. Spain conquered Mexico and continued to govern it until the 1821, when the Mexicans became self-governing. The new syncretism emerged during the three centuries of the colonial rule whereby one of the centuries combined the beliefs of Europeans and Indians. The Native Americans were converted by the Spanish missionaries to Christianity and pagan religions were squashed out.
What bias do you see from each side of the encounter?
The biasness of some historical sources makes it difficult to understand the encounters from each side. On the side of the Spanish, some historical sources reveal that the Spaniards were forced to flee out of the city and they decided to look for refuge in other surrounding cities. Additionally, they signed the treaty with the Tenochtitlan thus offering the Tlaxcalans liberty from any kind of tribute and the Tenochtitlan control. The sons of the Moctezuma were murdered by the Aztec during the blockade of the city when they wanted to surrender. The Aztec empire was entirely surrendered to the Spanish (Williams 73). The daughter of Moctezuma became the heir and inherited the wealth of the king following the Spanish customs. She later got married to diverse conquistadors who claimed the heritage of the Aztec emperor. Moreover, the biasness is indicated where Motecuhzomas received Cortes and other six hundred Spaniards believing that they were other gods (Schwartz 122). This occurred when Cortes Hernado who was accompanied by other Spaniards and many native allies to Mexico.
Another side, which has biasness, is the side of the native people of Mexico. The accounts of the Indian conquest present diverse stories whose dramatic interests are equal to those of great classical epics. The Indian history describes the difficulties, which the Aztec emperor faced. Many native people were reported to be deity worshipers, which was named after the ruling of Aztec. The part of the myth defied that someday Moctezuma would return to defend his people. Many historian sources describe Moctezuma as the weak-willed and someone unable to make up his mind. It is through this biasness that makes it difficult to understand his actions during the Spanish assault.
Is there any sense of superiority on either side?
There is a sense of superiority in the side of the native people of Mexico. Cultural aspect was one of the superiority in the side of native Mexicans. For instance, the Mestizo was a term, which was traditionally introduced by the Spanish to refer to people of mixed European and native Mexicans. The term originated as a cultural type in the Casta system that existed during the control of the Spanish empire. Mestizo was used in describing those members of native population. In the Casta system, the Mestizo individuals had fewer powers than the Europeans born to two same European parents who had more powers than those who were nicknamed Negros. The Mestizo became the majority of the group during the colonial period. When the colonies started achieving self-governing or independence from Spain, this group became dominant and decoded to unite. Their aim of uniting was to form a new self-governing identity, which was neither wholly native Mexicans nor Spanish. They eventually achieved a sense of superiority after a long struggle thus these name was removed from the census counts and it is no longer used in Mexico. This is an indication of the cultural or racial superiority that the indigenous people received.
In addition, racial superiority is indicated especially where the indigenous people who were identified by different racial terms such as Negros, Peninsular, Criollo and Indio managed to overcome racial discrimination. The Negro was a term, which was used for African slaves, and the Indio was a term, which was used to refer to anybody who was indigenous to Americans. The Criollo was a Spanish individual born in American and Peninsular was a person born in Spain. These terms were used to classify diverse categories of the native people and cultural policies were set which discriminated the native people. These policies made them not to receive same or equal rights with the non-indigenous people. The native people made efforts until policies were designed well thus the native people started receiving the same services as the rest of the society. This marked the end of cultural discrimination and some terms that discriminated indigenous people and it became rarely in use thus an indication of cultural superiority.
Another sense of superiority is viewed from the side of the Spanish. Some historical records present one side of the story that is the Spanish as the conquerors. The Spanish assaulted the native people in the 16th century. The Spanish gained a sense of superiority especially when they managed to conquer the native people. The native people feared the Spanish because of their powerful and technological superiority. Other historical sources reveal that when the native people saw the Spanish ship moving at the sea, they were astonished because during the 16th century, ships were rare. The indigenous people feared the Spanish and they respected them, something that indicates a sense of superiority in the side of the Spanish (Schwartz 109). Additionally, the Spanish managed to extend the nation’s authority through territorial acquisition and they built many empires in diverse places such as America, India and the eastern part of India. This is an indication of superiority because they exercised domination over others.
Which perspective seems to be a ‘truer’ account of the events?
The perspective that seems to be a truer account of the events is the Aztec account of the Spanish conquest in Mexico. The Mexican conquest is one of the central events of the world history. The Mexicans conquered much of what is now present in the modern Mexico. There are diverse historical resources that provide the Spanish conquest account. These provide a clear and truer picture of indigenous people in Mexico and the events that took place during the Mexican conquest. During the early fifteenth century, the Spanish conquistadors entered Mexico City. The Spaniards arrived from different directions of Tlalpan, southern part of the city and passed across the causeway connected with the island and mainland. After they arrived at Xoloco, Motecuhzomas welcomed them because he believed that the white men were the gods. The journey was led by Hernado Cortes who was their leader until they entered the city. This was the first encounter of the Spanish conquest account (Diaz 96).
The historical event presents only one side of the true story of the Mexican conquest whereby the historians have judged the conquest as one of the greatest civilizations in the American history. The event includes the native people of Mexico whereby many of them managed to survive persecution and others were assaulted. Moreover, the historical event reveals Indian conquest accounts in Mexico with diverse passages whose dramatic interest is the same as those of great classical epics. A few paragraphs from the text of Victors and Vanquished present true and clear historical accounts of the Mexico conquest. It explores diverse emperors of the era and some religious beliefs, which were dominant. Some of them include the belief of a god known as deity. The Spaniards destroyed many cultural practices of the indigenous people in an attempt to eliminate ancient beliefs. Some of the campaigns such as the Spanish conquest of Inca and Aztec empires were the significant campaigns done in the Spanish colonization of the Americans.
In conclusion, there are different ways that reveal on how the accounts differ. First, there is a difference between the Aztec Empire of the Spanish conquest of Mexico and the Yucatan Spanish conquest. The Aztec empire took a shorter period whereas the Yucatan took a longer period. Secondly, the cultural historical backgrounds of both accounts differ. However, both accounts tell the same story. First, Mexico’s legends reflect the Native American and the influences of the Spanish. Secondly, the native people of Mexico started sharing the same culture, which was adopted through simulation. Nevertheless, each side of the story has biasness. For instance, the account of Spanish has biasness especially when Motecuhzomas received Cortes and other six hundred Spaniards believing that they were gods. There is sense of superiority in each side of the accounts. The Spanish accounts reveal superiority when they became conquerors of the native people. The accounts of the native people of Mexico reveal cultural superiority because they united and formed a new self-governing identity. This enabled them to overcome racial discrimination and they thus started receiving equal rights like the Spanish. Lastly, the perspective that seems to be truer is the conquest of Mexico. This is because it provides clear events of what happened during the history of the sixteenth century in Mexico.
Works Cited
Diaz, Del.The True History of the Conquest of Mexico. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms,
1966. Print.
Schwartz, Stuart. Victors and Vanquished: Spanish and Nahua Views of the Conquest of
Mexico. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2000. Print.
Williams, Andrew. Liberalism and War: The Victors and the Vanquished. London, UK: Routledge, 2006. Internet resource.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]