Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest

Restall argues that the Spanish Conquest did not entirely destroy Indigenous cultures. Furthermore, pre-Conquest peoples neither lived in ideal, utopian societies nor were uncivilized. It is also unlikely that Indigenous Americans, like the Mexica and the Incas, believed the Spanish were gods, thus supposedly making them more susceptible to conquest. Indigenous people appear as cunning, innocent, or “barbaric” according to these interrelated myths, all of which are derived from the concept of “native desolation” post-Conquest.

Restall argues that neither the Mexica nor Incas believed the Spanish were gods, and their reaction to the Spanish was therefore not shaped by this false belief. This myth originates in Columbus’s letters, in which he uses the Spanish word “cielo” that translates as either “sky” or “heaven,” when he writes that the Indigenous people of the Caribbean believed he and his men had come “from the sky.” This, Restall asserts, is actually an “ambiguous” statement (111). Furthermore, Columbus never uses the word “gods,” so his writings are not evidence that Indigenous Americans believed the Spanish to be gods.

Restall claims that if the Mexica thought Cortés was a god, his biographer would have written about it, but no such claim is made in his biography, and nor does Cortés claim deification in his own writings. When Indigenous people “marvel” at the Europeans and say, “these men are gods,” they are not speaking literally, but rather, are articulating their amazement. It is only Franciscan writers who make explicit references to deification because of their desire to emphasize the Conquest as a divinely-ordained mission. For example, they perpetuated the myth that Moctezuma was paralyzed by fear, and thus submissive, because of omens received before the Spanish arrival. Sources related to Peru’s conquest make similar claims to apotheosis for similar reasons.

Similarly, writers in the 1700s claimed that Indigenous Americans believed the Spanish to be one with the horses they rode, since horses did not exist in the Americas before contact, and thus took them for gods. Evidence disputes this assertion, however. Though Indigenous peoples did not know horses, they had deer, and that is what they originally called horses, according to Restall. They would have clearly known man and horse were not one hybrid and divine being.

The continued imperialism of the 18th century helps to explain the European desire to explain the Conquest in such a way. One may argue that imperialist ideas about superior European “civilization” necessitated the denigration of Indigenous Americans as superstitious and ignorant. Restall suggests these 18th-century mythical ideas gave the Conquest meaning and imbued the structural inequality of contemporary colonial society with legitimacy. Indeed, as much historical scholarship shows, to maintain imperialist hierarchies, Europeans had to perpetuate an image of the “uncivilized” and “ignorant barbarian,” whom they generously rescued from ignorance through colonization and all the suppression, exploitation, and inequality that accompanied it. Colonialism and imperialism thus become a noble and righteous calling, hence the Franciscan view that it was God’s will.

Another popular interpretation of the Conquest reduces the Indigenous peoples to the role of mere victims, thus denying their agency and the complexity of their interactions with the Spanish. Such interpretations operate under the assumption that European arrival obliterated Indigenous societies. Restall’s evidence shows, on the contrary, that these societies often adapted to their colonial circumstances, particularly in the case of the Indigenous elites. What is more, instances of resistance toward colonialism among the Indigenous peoples reveal that the Indigenous were often anything but passive in the face of the Spanish Conquest— a facet of Indigenous experience that has often been minimized or overlooked.

For example, French historian Nathan Wachtel interprets a 16th-century Andean funerary lament as exemplifying the “trauma” the Conquest caused Indigenous peoples (101). However, this song specifically mourns Atahuallpa’s execution following a long-standing tradition that existed prior to contact, and was meant to call attention to poverty and depopulation. It was a critique of Spanish colonialism that, along with other critical writings, birthed “a myth about the nature of native civilizations before the Conquest, native reactions to the Conquest, and the long-term impact of colonization on native societies” (101).

Restall points out that Spanish colonialism was most effective when “it coincided with native practices, patterns, and structures, but otherwise it met with the same level of tenacious resistance that all peoples tend to display to outsiders radically interfering in their lives” (104, emphasis added). Furthermore, many aspects of Indigenous culture survived colonization. Much evidence exists for this persistent “vitality” (122). For example, Restall argues that festivals in colonial Mexico commemorated the Conquest not as a traumatic event but as a celebration of Indigenous endurance. Indigenous elites, moreover, sometimes actively “collaborated in Conquest and colonial agendas” (124) by negotiating with the Spanish, who in turn granted them positions within the colonial administration. Likewise, Indigenous towns survived and adopted Spanish models of local government that were not seen by the governed as an arm of colonialism.

The devastation wrought by European diseases on Indigenous Americas receives much attention in academic and popular literature, and it is true that epidemics killed hundreds of thousands of people. This devastation contributes to the myth of desolation. However, with population decline came opportunities for those who survived, albeit within a colonial framework. These opportunities were often political. Restall concludes that Indigenous survivors were victims of the Conquest, but nevertheless not entirely powerless, because “they did not sink into depression and inactivity […] Instead they tenaciously sought ways to continue local ways of life and improve the quality of life even in the face of colonial changes and challenges” (129).