Discussion Question(s) Why do you think that Native Allies and African Conquistadors were not mentioned in European accounts of the conquest? Do you think it was intentional or unintentional? Why?  Portrayals of Malintzin have been unfair to her, historically. My question is this: why do you think the stories have been so unfair to her, while Cortes and other conquistadors are either rewarded or ignored for actually carrying out the conquest? How do your readings connect to either of these questions?  Lecture 3- Steamrolling? "Malintzin was the indigenous woman who translated for Hernando Cortés in his dealings with the Aztec emperor Moctezuma in the days of 1519 to 1521. "Malintzin," at least, was what the Indians called her. The Spanish called her doña Marina, and she has become known to posterity as La Malinche. As Malinche, she has long been regarded as a traitor to her people, a dangerously sexy, scheming woman who gave Cortés whatever he wanted out of her own self-interest. The life of the real woman, however, was much more complicated. She was sold into slavery as a child, and eventually given away to the Spanish as a concubine and cook. If she managed to make something more out of her life--and she did--it is difficult to say at what point she did wrong." Actually, that is a good question: what did she do wrong? Not much, it turns out-- having been sold by her family, and again by the subsequent owners, exactly what kind of loyalty was she supposed to have? Who was it that she was supposed to not "sell out?" No one, it turns out. Historians today know that she was doing her best to stay alive, and make a life for herself, and given her situation and life experiences, it is hard to expect anything more.  For me, at least, this raises a simple question: why are people in such a hurry to blame Malintzin for the conquest, when, in fact, they should be blaming the Spanish? Why did the blame shift to her, instead of where it should have been-- on Cortes and his men? Just curious. The Indigenous Allies: Check out this Prezi presentation! Short and sweet! Think about it alongside your readings! (Links to an external site.) ñ    Spanish, Slavery, and Encomiendas (Early Colonial Period) In U.S. History, people debate quite a lot about the plight of Native Americans. Some people believe that Native Americans were given a chance to be a part of the developing American culture, others say they were not. Still others, citing the diminishing numbers of Native Americans and the active role that the U.S. government and its white citizens took in killing and displacing Native Americans, call it genocide. In Latin America, it is a little more complicated.  The removal, displacement, and murder of Native Americans is undeniable in U.S. history, but such actions did not take place in Mexico, or other parts of Latin America, at least not on the same scale. The reason for this is that the goals of the British and the Spanish were different wh.

1. Discussion Question(s)
Why do you think that Native Allies and African Conquistadors
were not mentioned in European accounts of the conquest? Do
you think it was intentional or unintentional? Why?
Portrayals of Malintzin have been unfair to her, historically. My
question is this: why do you think the stories have been so
unfair to her, while Cortes and other conquistadors are either
rewarded or ignored for actually carrying out the conquest?
How do your readings connect to either of these questions?
Lecture 3- Steamrolling?
"Malintzin was the indigenous woman who translated for
Hernando Cortés in his dealings with the Aztec emperor
Moctezuma in the days of 1519 to 1521. "Malintzin," at least,
was what the Indians called her. The Spanish called her doña
Marina, and she has become known to posterity as La Malinche.
As Malinche, she has long been regarded as a traitor to her
people, a dangerously sexy, scheming woman who gave Cortés
whatever he wanted out of her own self-interest.
The life of the real woman, however, was much more
complicated. She was sold into slavery as a child, and
eventually given away to the Spanish as a concubine and cook.
If she managed to make something more out of her life--and she
did--it is difficult to say at what point she did wrong."
Actually, that is a good question: what did she do wrong? Not
much, it turns out-- having been sold by her family, and again
by the subsequent owners, exactly what kind of loyalty was she
supposed to have? Who was it that she was supposed to not "sell

2. out?" No one, it turns out. Historians today know that she was
doing her best to stay alive, and make a life for herself, and
given her situation and life experiences, it is hard to expect
anything more.
For me, at least, this raises a simple question: why are people in
such a hurry to blame Malintzin for the conquest, when, in fact,
they should be blaming the Spanish? Why did the blame shift to
her, instead of where it should have been-- on Cortes and his
men? Just curious.
The Indigenous Allies:
Check out this Prezi presentation! Short and sweet! Think about
it alongside your readings! (Links to an external site.)
ñ
Spanish, Slavery, and Encomiendas (Early Colonial Period)
In U.S. History, people debate quite a lot about the plight of
Native Americans. Some people believe that Native Americans
were given a chance to be a part of the developing American
culture, others say they were not. Still others, citing the
diminishing numbers of Native Americans and the active role
that the U.S. government and its white citizens took in killing
and displacing Native Americans, call it genocide. In Latin
America, it is a little more complicated.
The removal, displacement, and murder of Native Americans is
undeniable in U.S. history, but such actions did not take place
in Mexico, or other parts of Latin America, at least not on the
same scale. The reason for this is that the goals of the British
and the Spanish were different when establishing colonies in the
Americas.

3. The British, running out of room to live in England, usually
came to the Americas to make a home for themselves, and own
land. The Spanish, on the other hand, were interested in making
money-- that is, seeing where the gold and silver was. And there
was plenty of silver (and some gold) to be had in the Andes
region of South America, and the north central part of Mexico.
To mine these precious metals, the Spanish conquistadors, and
then the Spanish settlers, needed workers, and they naturally
looked to the indigenous peoples of the region.
But establishing a native workforce was not easy. New to the
region, Spanish conquistadors and settlers relied on native
knowledge to navigate the area, find the precious metals and
establish mines (and get workers!). Slavery was common for a
while, but ultimately ineffective. Too many would run away or
fight back. They knew the terrain in ways that the European
newcomers did not, making slavery as we know it even more
difficult, if not impossible. Yet, there were ways in which
slavery existed, even if it doesn't look familiar to us. I comes
from a system that wasn't supposed to be about slavery at all:
the Encomienda.
The encomienda was something the crown gave to a soldier, an
official, or a conquistador. Technically it wasn't land, but rather
the Spaniard was given power over the Indians in the area, and
was legally able to demand tribute (payment; taxes), either in
cash (gold), or in labor. Now, even though it was not
technically a land grant, the Spaniard often received land as
payment, or they just took it. In most cases,
encomenderos
usually ended up with land, and indigenous folks were bound to
it-- they had to live there, work there, eat there, etc., usually
because they owed that payment to the Spaniard (
the encomendero
)
.

4. There was, however, a catch: because the Spanish were a
catholic people, and their catholic faith underwrote much of the
journey to the Americas, the crown also demanded that the
encomendero
also convert his Indians to Christianity. However, such
conversions were rarely made, and encomiendas were
essentially places that practiced slavery, even if it was under
another name.
Just about everyone realized this, including Antonio de
Montesinos, a parish priest in what we call the Dominican
Republic today. In 1511, he got up in front of his church
members (most of whom were
encomenderos
), and basically criticized them and the encomienda system as a
whole:
"Tell me, by what right of justice do you hold these Indians in
such a cruel and horrible servitude? On what authority have you
waged such detestable wars against these people who dealt
quietly and peacefully on their own lands? Wars in which you
have destroyed such an infinite number of them by homicides
and slaughters never heard of before. Why do you keep them so
oppressed and exhausted, without giving them enough to eat or
curing them of the sicknesses they incur from the excessive
labor you give them, and they die, or rather you kill them, in
order to extract and acquire gold every day."
He said this right in front of the people who were doing this to
the native peoples!
And this gets to the heart of the matter when it comes to the
Catholic Church in Latin America, and it is something worth
remembering: while the church had their own official positions
about Indians higher up on the ladder (the people who worked
in offices and wore jewelry), the ones who were preaching

5. every week, or even everyday, were more inclined to protect
native folk than they were to hurt them. Of course, this was a
later development, after the violent portion of the conquest had
passed and settlement began. Still, it is important to remember
that when we think about the church, indigenous people, or even
Spaniards, we cannot lump them all into one group. People had
different views and reacted differently to particular situations.
Yet, we can say that on average, the church did irreparable
damage to the native cultures and religions throughout Latin
America, though some of them still survive (and some of them
are mixed in with Christianity over the years, decades,
centuries).
But let's get back to whether the encomiendas were a form of
slavery or not.
The Spanish crown and the Catholic church definitely had some
issues with slavery, and they had some issues with the forced
conversion that came with it-- they thought it was immoral.
Well, they only
thought
it was immoral; they weren't sure. I say they weren't sure
because in 1550, two men, Bartolome de las Casas and Juan
Gines Sepulveda debated in Spain (the city of Valladolid), in
front of King Charles I, had an official debate to figure out
whether or not slavery and forced conversion (which is what
happened if you were an native person on an encomienda) was,
well, Christian. (Page 70 in Chapter 2 of your text-- maybe a
different page depending on which edition you have). They did
not come to a resolution.
The larger point of all this is to say that native folks were in
bondage of sorts, but they also discovered that upon conversion,
they could take advantage of the laws

6. Malinche-- Traitor, Victim, or Survivor?
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art172781.asp