Brace Face Kylie
New member
Mayan And Spanish Encounters
The spiritual conquest, or the Spanish goal to conquer and convert the Amerindians to Christianity during the colonial period is a rather difficult area to examine from an objective point of view. A wealth of sources exists but yet they are all from the Spanish perspective. Unfortunately the Mayan voices, or the conquered people, are silent, as their peoples had no form of written expression. One then must study and attempt to piece together the various Spanish accounts to determine how life was in the Yucatلn peninsula during the sixteenth century. The writings of Dominican Friar Bartholomé de las Casas and those of Franciscan Friar Toribio de Motolinيa are quite contradictory. However, through a careful analysis of both Spanish sources, in conjunction with the assistance of Inga Clendinnen's account of the Maya and Spanish encounters both arguments are validated, with a greater reliability placed upon that of Motolinيa.
Las Casas was known as an activist and defender of Amerindian rights. His anti-imperialistic and anti-racism attitude is prevalent throughout his work. His central argument calls down upon the brutality inflicted by the conquest, questioning their use of force on such good-natured people. He states that "God has created all these nuraberless people to be quite the simplest, without malice or duplicity, most obedient, most faithful to their natural LorRAB, and to the Christians…" (Lunenfeld, 206). He petitioned to both the Council and King Charles V to cancel the current licenses of expeditions until the issue of propriety had been addressed (Lunenfeld, 221). Although the King did temporarily grant Las Casas' request, it produced no results, as Las Casas was ineffective in arguing his case. He had no real foundation for his argument but a few points, which according to Lunenfeld, he constantly reiterated.
What was the source of Las Casas' information? Did he make harsh generalizations that he applied to the whole colonial society? It appears certain that he did not truly represent the interests of the Amerindians because there is no mention of any particular individuals. Instead he mounts all Amerindians together as a group, thus implying his generalizations. It is sheer ignorance on his part to fail to argue his case clearly. Lunenfeld further criticizes Las Casas' argument by stating that "he wrote about places he never saw and made up statistics to fit his case" (205). Besides falsifying the information contained in his argument, he took a nuraber of points from The Bible or philosophers, such as Aristotle. Through his quotation of Aristotle, he acknowledges that there are two evils, and that it is preferable to choose the lesser evil, as it "has the quality of a good" (Lunenfeld, 224). Here he is perhaps referring to the wrongdoing by the friars in baptizing the Amerindians in comparison to the brutality imposed by the conquerors and encomenderos. In his case, he considered the holy mission the lesser evil, or "the one thought to be less evil" (Lunenfeld, 225).
Unlike Las Casas, who represented the Amerindians, Motolinيa "was a spokesman for the ordinary Spanish settler" (Lunenfeld, 211). Motolinيa's central argument defenRAB the conquerors, encomenderos, and merchants that Las Casas focuses his attack upon. Motolinيa responRAB to Las Casas' accusation of excessive brutality by blaming the deaths of the indigenous on the diseases the Europeans brought to New Spain (Lunenfeld, 213). He calls down on Las Casas for depicting all settlers as oppressors, mean while failing to acknowledge that any such misuse of power occurred at all.
The reader also obtains a notion of truth from the contents of Motolinيa's letter, as Lunenfeld's introduction does not question the sources or values of his testimony, as he did Las Casas. Furthermore, in his introduction, Lunenfeld does not present Motolinيa as an evil person, for he was responsible for "the reduction of tribute demanded from the natives" (211). If he was as kind-hearted as he is portrayed, then it seems highly improbable that he would have condoned any oppression of the Amerindians, as the confessionals of Las Casas suggest.
Clendinnen's account of the spiritual conquest appears to be a relatively neutral source, not obviously supporting the arguments of either Las Casas or Motolinيa. At first glance, she makes no mention in the defense of the Spanish, but does include specific examples of encomendero brutality: "(he) took an Indian woman, stripped her, tied her to a post and flogged her with willow switches…until she died" (Clendinnen, 55). Clendinnen specifically defines the roles of both settlers and friars, clearly stating that the settlers had no entitlement to use force: "settlers had only closely restricted rights to labor and tribute, physical and spiritual control of the Indians belonged to the friars" (Clendinnen, 55). However she does not say that all encomenderos abused their power as Las Casas did but rather that the settlers "had no hesitation in urging the Crown to remove the encomiendas from…those SpaniarRAB whose behavior exceeded proper bounRAB" (Clendinnen, 55). The preceding statement illustrates that she appears to also support the argument of Motolinيa, in that not all encomenderos were guilty of exploiting the Amerindians.
Both friars had seemingly good intentions: to protect either the interests of the Amerindians or the settlers. However it does pose a valid question: which source does one readily accept as more factual? Although a problem is encountered in the absence of any Amerindian testimonial, Inga Clendinnen's account of the Mayan and Spanish encounter does appear to support both sides, but tenRAB to favor Motolinيa's argument. Unlike Las Casas, Motolinيa makes his argument stronger and therefore more plausible by refraining from making generalizations.
The spiritual conquest, or the Spanish goal to conquer and convert the Amerindians to Christianity during the colonial period is a rather difficult area to examine from an objective point of view. A wealth of sources exists but yet they are all from the Spanish perspective. Unfortunately the Mayan voices, or the conquered people, are silent, as their peoples had no form of written expression. One then must study and attempt to piece together the various Spanish accounts to determine how life was in the Yucatلn peninsula during the sixteenth century. The writings of Dominican Friar Bartholomé de las Casas and those of Franciscan Friar Toribio de Motolinيa are quite contradictory. However, through a careful analysis of both Spanish sources, in conjunction with the assistance of Inga Clendinnen's account of the Maya and Spanish encounters both arguments are validated, with a greater reliability placed upon that of Motolinيa.
Las Casas was known as an activist and defender of Amerindian rights. His anti-imperialistic and anti-racism attitude is prevalent throughout his work. His central argument calls down upon the brutality inflicted by the conquest, questioning their use of force on such good-natured people. He states that "God has created all these nuraberless people to be quite the simplest, without malice or duplicity, most obedient, most faithful to their natural LorRAB, and to the Christians…" (Lunenfeld, 206). He petitioned to both the Council and King Charles V to cancel the current licenses of expeditions until the issue of propriety had been addressed (Lunenfeld, 221). Although the King did temporarily grant Las Casas' request, it produced no results, as Las Casas was ineffective in arguing his case. He had no real foundation for his argument but a few points, which according to Lunenfeld, he constantly reiterated.
What was the source of Las Casas' information? Did he make harsh generalizations that he applied to the whole colonial society? It appears certain that he did not truly represent the interests of the Amerindians because there is no mention of any particular individuals. Instead he mounts all Amerindians together as a group, thus implying his generalizations. It is sheer ignorance on his part to fail to argue his case clearly. Lunenfeld further criticizes Las Casas' argument by stating that "he wrote about places he never saw and made up statistics to fit his case" (205). Besides falsifying the information contained in his argument, he took a nuraber of points from The Bible or philosophers, such as Aristotle. Through his quotation of Aristotle, he acknowledges that there are two evils, and that it is preferable to choose the lesser evil, as it "has the quality of a good" (Lunenfeld, 224). Here he is perhaps referring to the wrongdoing by the friars in baptizing the Amerindians in comparison to the brutality imposed by the conquerors and encomenderos. In his case, he considered the holy mission the lesser evil, or "the one thought to be less evil" (Lunenfeld, 225).
Unlike Las Casas, who represented the Amerindians, Motolinيa "was a spokesman for the ordinary Spanish settler" (Lunenfeld, 211). Motolinيa's central argument defenRAB the conquerors, encomenderos, and merchants that Las Casas focuses his attack upon. Motolinيa responRAB to Las Casas' accusation of excessive brutality by blaming the deaths of the indigenous on the diseases the Europeans brought to New Spain (Lunenfeld, 213). He calls down on Las Casas for depicting all settlers as oppressors, mean while failing to acknowledge that any such misuse of power occurred at all.
The reader also obtains a notion of truth from the contents of Motolinيa's letter, as Lunenfeld's introduction does not question the sources or values of his testimony, as he did Las Casas. Furthermore, in his introduction, Lunenfeld does not present Motolinيa as an evil person, for he was responsible for "the reduction of tribute demanded from the natives" (211). If he was as kind-hearted as he is portrayed, then it seems highly improbable that he would have condoned any oppression of the Amerindians, as the confessionals of Las Casas suggest.
Clendinnen's account of the spiritual conquest appears to be a relatively neutral source, not obviously supporting the arguments of either Las Casas or Motolinيa. At first glance, she makes no mention in the defense of the Spanish, but does include specific examples of encomendero brutality: "(he) took an Indian woman, stripped her, tied her to a post and flogged her with willow switches…until she died" (Clendinnen, 55). Clendinnen specifically defines the roles of both settlers and friars, clearly stating that the settlers had no entitlement to use force: "settlers had only closely restricted rights to labor and tribute, physical and spiritual control of the Indians belonged to the friars" (Clendinnen, 55). However she does not say that all encomenderos abused their power as Las Casas did but rather that the settlers "had no hesitation in urging the Crown to remove the encomiendas from…those SpaniarRAB whose behavior exceeded proper bounRAB" (Clendinnen, 55). The preceding statement illustrates that she appears to also support the argument of Motolinيa, in that not all encomenderos were guilty of exploiting the Amerindians.
Both friars had seemingly good intentions: to protect either the interests of the Amerindians or the settlers. However it does pose a valid question: which source does one readily accept as more factual? Although a problem is encountered in the absence of any Amerindian testimonial, Inga Clendinnen's account of the Mayan and Spanish encounter does appear to support both sides, but tenRAB to favor Motolinيa's argument. Unlike Las Casas, Motolinيa makes his argument stronger and therefore more plausible by refraining from making generalizations.