44 pages • 1 hour read
A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Historical mythmaking has generated numerous persistent and popular misconceptions about the past. Restall tackles seven myths, or historical fictions, surrounding the Spanish conquests in the Americas that are persistent, yet rooted in biased colonial sources. The history behind the construction of these myths is revealing and can shed light on people, events, and the various social, political, or cultural circumstances that led to their creation. Simultaneously, reliance on historical myths obscures other historical truths, like Indigenous and African participation in the Conquest of the Americas or the standardization of Spanish conquest procedures.
Early colonial writers thus decided what aspects of the Spanish Conquest mattered and chose to emphasize particular people and events over others. They likewise chose to present individuals and events in particular ways that were, for instance, shaped by religious ideology, political circumstances, or cultural traditions. Throughout his work, Restall attempts to redress this imbalance by considering Spanish colonial sources alongside Indigenous accounts, observing similarities and differences in their emphasis on, and interpretations of, the same historical events. What they emphasize and what they do not helps Restall provide a broader and more complete account of the Spanish Conquest: “We can compare the truths of the conquistadors to our truths about them, and as a result achieve a better understanding of the Conquest—even if that understanding does not pretend to be the truth in an absolute sense” (xvii).
For example, the letters that Columbus and Cortés authored served purposes that are better understood by considering early modern Spanish politics and colonial procedures. Cortés engaged in his own mythmaking because he sought power and approval from the Spanish monarchy and thus deliberately represented himself and his conquests in a positive and triumphant light. Columbus did the same, especially after he fell out of favor with the Spanish monarchs, because he was an aggrieved man seeking to cement his legacy as an accomplished and successful explorer.
Restall acknowledges that expecting total objectivity from both past chronicles and modern historians is unrealistic. Context affects the writing of history and historical sources just as it does the composition of literature and the production of the arts. Historians are often expected to maintain “objectivity,” but historical narrative and analysis cannot be divorced from the contemporary contexts that produce historical writing. Like literature or the visual arts, historical writing is not generated in a vacuum and responds to social, political, and cultural circumstances. Information becomes historically significant when one decides it matters. In essence, total objectivity is impossible. As Restall points out, myths are often “real” to those who construct them (xvi). It is therefore important to consider contextual factors when evaluating and assessing sources.
As Restall demonstrates throughout his book, people and events can only be understood when placed within the broader historical context and processes at play. Furthermore, understanding how historical forces or processes shaped and informed the choices people made leads to a fuller understanding of not only what happened in the past, but why and how.
As Restall shows his readers, the analysis of sources cannot be divorced from the forces that created them. These contexts shaped the way that colonial writers presented themselves, the people around them, and the events they witnessed or were writing about. Spanish conquistadors, for example, sought the crown’s approval and patronage that allowed them to rise in stature, wealth, and political power. Thus, the way that Spanish colonialism operated informed the way that these men wrote about themselves and others, causing them to often embellish their successes, portray Indigenous peoples in specific and often derogatory ways, and to denigrate their rivals.
This context led to mythmaking through the thousands of surviving Spanish probanzas (“merits of proof”) written to the Spanish king reporting results of expeditions, some of which were published and circulated more widely, creating a kind of standardized literary genre. Cortés’s letters functioned as probanzas, according to Restall, and “so efficiently promoted the Conquest as Cortés’s achievement, and sold so well in at least five languages, that the crown banned the cartas [letters] lest the conqueror’s cult status become a political threat” (12). Understanding the nuances of such context can help to combat The Persistence of Historical Myths, as explored in the entry above.
When one separates men like Columbus or Cortés from the historical context that made them, they appear exceptional, leading to the myth of “great men” carrying out the Spanish Conquest. These men, however, were products of larger historical forces, including the Portuguese exploration of the Atlantic, Spanish competition with this neighboring kingdom, and Spanish colonial procedures, some of which were derived from contact between Europeans and Muslims in Spain.
Celebrated conquistadors were thus players in a global phenomenon and were not wholly unique. Their successes, however, contribute to the myth that they were extraordinary, as reflected in surviving primary source accounts, such as Cortés’s aforementioned letters. When those accounts are compared to other documentation, however, they appear less exceptional. For example, Cortés’s use of Indigenous allies, including Marina/La Malinche (See: Key Figures), as interpreters was already standard practice, as was his formation of alliances with Indigenous peoples in fighting the Mexica. In considering the broader historical contexts and processes at play, Restall argues, historians can learn to look past the myths to get closer to the more nuanced truths at the heart of history.
Myths about Indigenous Americans run throughout Restall’s work, as both primary myths and sub-myths. These include the myth of “native desolation,” the myth that Indigenous peoples believed the Spanish were returning deities, and myths surrounding Indigenous ability/inability to communicate effectively. Throughout the book, Restall challenges Eurocentric representations of Indigenous roles in the Conquest, addressing misrepresentations of Indigenous culture. His work highlights the larger and ongoing need to center Indigenous history in both Latin American and United States history.
The Spanish Conquest could not have succeeded without the assistance of Indigenous allies, who, as Restall notes, consistently outnumbered the Spanish conquistadors themselves. These Indigenous Americans participated in acts of conquest as messengers, spies, interpreters (e.g., Marina/La Malinche), and as fighters. Moreover, Restall’s work shows that these individuals were indispensable to the Spanish. The fact that others began to call Cortés himself “Malinche” speaks to Marina’s importance, for she and the conquistador were viewed almost as one being. She contributed to his success, something for which she is popularly maligned today. However, Indigenous elites who seemingly capitulated to the colonizers’ will frequently did so to preserve their status and some sense of autonomy rather than face destruction, as Marina may have done.
Indigenous Americans sometimes actively participated in the Conquest not out of loyalty to the Spanish, but rather as a response to Mexica imperialism. One of Restall’s examples of this phenomenon is the case of the Tlaxcalans. Colonial writer Bernal Díaz suggests that thousands of Tlaxcalans took part in the Spanish siege of the Mexica capital city, Tenochtitlán. These warriors willingly allied themselves with the Spanish because they saw such an alliance as a strategy that would allow them to succeed in what was a local conflict with the Mexica. The Mexica Empire extracted tribute from subjugated cities, and the Tlaxcalans resented this tributary system that extracted large amounts of wealth from their successful merchants. They first resisted the Spanish but, after several weeks of fighting, relented and shifted their strategy to one of collaboration.
Following the destruction of the Mexica, Tlaxcalan auxiliaries continued to participate in Spanish campaigns across the Americas and some became their dependents, who colonized other lands that the Spanish seized. San Estéban de Nueva, for instance, was a Tlaxcalan colony in “New Spain” established in 1591 in a thinly-populated area of northeastern Mexico. It is but one of several Tlaxcalan colonies established after the Conquest under Spanish rule.
This evidence supports Restall’s assertion that “native passivity” is a myth: Indigenous peoples played an active and essential role in the success of the Spanish Conquest, and the conquistadors were heavily reliant upon them throughout their undertakings. Furthermore, some Indigenous populations, like the Tlaxcalans, flourished post-Conquest, and it is unlikely that the Spanish would have retained control over conquered lands were it not for these Indigenous allies as colonizers. While traditional Eurocentric accounts portray Indigenous peoples as either helpless victims or uncivilized “barbarians,” Restall shows that the Indigenous peoples were cultured, strategic, and frequently exercised considerable agency both during and after the Conquest.
Plus, gain access to 8,800+ more expert-written Study Guides.
Including features:
American Literature
View Collection
Books on U.S. History
View Collection
Challenging Authority
View Collection
Colonialism & Postcolonialism
View Collection
Colonialism Unit
View Collection
European History
View Collection
Power
View Collection
Spanish Literature
View Collection
The Past
View Collection
Truth & Lies
View Collection