Christopher Columbus' map. Lisbon, workshop of Bartolomeo and Christopher Columbus, c.1490. Bibliothèque Nationale de France (CPL GE AA 562 RES).
I teach a unit on early explorations of the New World. Because these narratives are in Spanish and then translated into English for the Norton Anthology, I have found that it's important to give a variety of angles into the texts since students can't "close read" with the same precision that they would be able to if they were reading the author's direct words. We read three Spanish explorers in this unit: Christopher Columbus, Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca, and Bernardino de Sahagún. In the following blog post I will trace my general strategy for these three authors.
Columbus
Portrait of a Man, Said to be Christopher Columbus (born about 1446, died 1506), by Sebastiano del Piombo (aka Sebastiano Luciani), 1519. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.
The Norton's selections of Columbus' writings are unusual. The editors selected two letters that Columbus wrote: 1) Letter to Luis de Santangel Regarding the First Voyage (February 15, 1493); and 2) Letter to Ferdinand and Isabella Regarding the Fourth Voyage (July 7, 1503). The first letter makes Columbus look like a hero who has discovered a marvel, and the second makes him look like a deluded man embittered by his fall from grace.
It is useful to compare and contrast the two letters to each other: what kind of persona does Columbus create for himself in each letter? How does he consider the Native Americans? How does he consider the Spanish? In the first letter, why does he reference things like the nightingale and honeybees which were not in the New World but were in Spain? To whom is he writing in either letter and how does that affect the way we understand his tone?
The Norton's selection opens up students to critique Columbus, but it also maintains enough ambiguity that they could still walk away from their reading with a rather simplistic and laudatory view of him still intact. I find it useful to bring in other voices to challenge their uncritical view. First, I give them a critique of the encomienda system that emerged from Columbus' policies, a critique that was written by Columbus' near contemporary Bartolomé de las Casa. A selection of de las Casas' The Very Brief Relation of the Devastation of the Indies (1552) is available in the Norton on pp. 38-42. In this section, de las Casas outlines in harrowing detail the atrocities that the Spanish were inflicting on the natives of the Caribbean. I like to ask my students: what is de las Casas’ seeming purpose in writing and how does that compare to Columbus? Compare and contrast the way that Columbus and de las Casas speak about the New World and its inhabitants. Also consider the way that these two early modern explorers use Hispaniola in order to draw contrasts between Native American culture and Spanish culture.
I also ask the younger students to read the essay by Ian W. Toll, “The Less Than Heroic Christopher Columbus,” in The New York Times, September 23, 2011, available online at this link, which is a really lovely review of Laurence Bergreen's Columbus: The Four Voyages, 1492-1504 (2012). Toll summarizes various "readings" of Columbus throughout history and praises Bergreen for his assessment of Columbus as one who "became progressively less rational and more extreme, until it seemed as if he lived more in his glorious illusions than in the grueling reality his voyages laid bare.” Bergreen's book would be good to excerpt for older students, but Toll's editorial in The New York Times is sufficient for my purposes with ninth graders. I ask them to explain Toll’s criticisms about Columbus and to consider if they accord with de las Casas’ text. Additionally, if the early modern explorers’ account of Hispaniola can tell us something about the way they view Spain, does Toll’s account of Columbus tell us something about how he views modern-day America? Why do you think we celebrate Columbus Day anyway?
It is useful to compare and contrast the two letters to each other: what kind of persona does Columbus create for himself in each letter? How does he consider the Native Americans? How does he consider the Spanish? In the first letter, why does he reference things like the nightingale and honeybees which were not in the New World but were in Spain? To whom is he writing in either letter and how does that affect the way we understand his tone?
The Norton's selection opens up students to critique Columbus, but it also maintains enough ambiguity that they could still walk away from their reading with a rather simplistic and laudatory view of him still intact. I find it useful to bring in other voices to challenge their uncritical view. First, I give them a critique of the encomienda system that emerged from Columbus' policies, a critique that was written by Columbus' near contemporary Bartolomé de las Casa. A selection of de las Casas' The Very Brief Relation of the Devastation of the Indies (1552) is available in the Norton on pp. 38-42. In this section, de las Casas outlines in harrowing detail the atrocities that the Spanish were inflicting on the natives of the Caribbean. I like to ask my students: what is de las Casas’ seeming purpose in writing and how does that compare to Columbus? Compare and contrast the way that Columbus and de las Casas speak about the New World and its inhabitants. Also consider the way that these two early modern explorers use Hispaniola in order to draw contrasts between Native American culture and Spanish culture.
I also ask the younger students to read the essay by Ian W. Toll, “The Less Than Heroic Christopher Columbus,” in The New York Times, September 23, 2011, available online at this link, which is a really lovely review of Laurence Bergreen's Columbus: The Four Voyages, 1492-1504 (2012). Toll summarizes various "readings" of Columbus throughout history and praises Bergreen for his assessment of Columbus as one who "became progressively less rational and more extreme, until it seemed as if he lived more in his glorious illusions than in the grueling reality his voyages laid bare.” Bergreen's book would be good to excerpt for older students, but Toll's editorial in The New York Times is sufficient for my purposes with ninth graders. I ask them to explain Toll’s criticisms about Columbus and to consider if they accord with de las Casas’ text. Additionally, if the early modern explorers’ account of Hispaniola can tell us something about the way they view Spain, does Toll’s account of Columbus tell us something about how he views modern-day America? Why do you think we celebrate Columbus Day anyway?
Cabeza de Vaca
Fun fact: "Cabeza de Vaca" means "Cow Head" in Spanish!
Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca had a crazy, crazy life. He came to the New World as part of the ill-fated 1527 Narváez expedition. After surviving a hurricane and losing the ship, Cabeza de Vaca and a handful of other survivors made rafts and floated from western Florida to Galveston, Texas, where they were captured and enslaved by the Capoques and Hans Indians. After years of enslavement, Cabeza de Vaca became a merchant and then eventually a faith-healer among the Indians. He and the other three remaining members of the expedition traveled by foot all over what is now the southwest United States, amassing thousands of followers. Over an eight-year period of wandering, Cabeza de Vaca ended up in Mexico City where he was reunited with his countrymen and then eventually brought back to Spain. He wrote of his adventure in The Relation of Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca, which he offered to Charles V as being "of no trivial value for those who go in your name to subdue those countries and bring them to a knowledge of the true faith and true Lord and bring them under the imperial dominion."
The Norton excerpt focuses on the initial period of enslavement and the reunion with the Spanish in Mexico city. I like to supplement the Norton's brief section with passages from The Relation that focus on what it was like for Cabeza de Vaca to become a faith-healer. As the excerpt above suggests, Cabeza de Vaca is on board with the colonialist project, but he also critiques the Spanish practice of enslaving the Indians, saying, "they received us with the same awe and respect the others had--even more, which amazed us. Clearly, to bring all these people to Christianity and subjection to Your Imperial Majesty, they must be won by kindness, the only certain way."
The way that he describes becoming a faith healer is especially useful for exploring his divided sense of self. He alternates between Machiavellian cunning as he seeks to augment the natives' misconception that he is from heaven and heartfelt wonder that God has seemingly chosen him as a vessel to bless, heal, and unite people who are sick or at war with each other. In short, he alternates between wanting to use the Indians and sincerely wanting to help them.
I ask my students to trace the "narrative" or agenda that is pro-colonization, pro-Spanish, and pro-exploitation. Then I also ask them to trace the "counter narrative" that is critical of colonization, the Spanish, and exploitation. We consider also what might account for tension between the two narratives: is this symptomatic of a divided loyalty, a divided sense of self, a product of being in a liminal space between "Spanish" and "Native American"? Is Cabeza de Vaca the "first" American?
The Norton excerpt focuses on the initial period of enslavement and the reunion with the Spanish in Mexico city. I like to supplement the Norton's brief section with passages from The Relation that focus on what it was like for Cabeza de Vaca to become a faith-healer. As the excerpt above suggests, Cabeza de Vaca is on board with the colonialist project, but he also critiques the Spanish practice of enslaving the Indians, saying, "they received us with the same awe and respect the others had--even more, which amazed us. Clearly, to bring all these people to Christianity and subjection to Your Imperial Majesty, they must be won by kindness, the only certain way."
The way that he describes becoming a faith healer is especially useful for exploring his divided sense of self. He alternates between Machiavellian cunning as he seeks to augment the natives' misconception that he is from heaven and heartfelt wonder that God has seemingly chosen him as a vessel to bless, heal, and unite people who are sick or at war with each other. In short, he alternates between wanting to use the Indians and sincerely wanting to help them.
I ask my students to trace the "narrative" or agenda that is pro-colonization, pro-Spanish, and pro-exploitation. Then I also ask them to trace the "counter narrative" that is critical of colonization, the Spanish, and exploitation. We consider also what might account for tension between the two narratives: is this symptomatic of a divided loyalty, a divided sense of self, a product of being in a liminal space between "Spanish" and "Native American"? Is Cabeza de Vaca the "first" American?
Sahagún
Illustration of Bernardino de Sahagún from Narrative and Critical History of American (New York: Houghton, Mifflin, and Company, 1886).
Bernardino de Sahagún also had an amazing life, although his was one of study instead of one of adventure. He was a Franciscan missionary priest who spent more than 50 years studying the language, culture, and beliefs of the Aztec Indians. He translated parts of the bible into Nahuatl, the Aztec language. He also wrote the General History of the Things of New Spain which is considered the first ethnographic study to use objective and consistent methods for gathering information. Because of his innovations in ethnography, he is known as the "first anthropologist."
Very simply, Sahagún created a survey that he administered to the Aztecs about a wide range of topics. He administered the survey in their native language, Nahuatl, and he interviewed a wide range of people (including women). The survey was very simple in its basic premise. The written responses--given in Nahuatl and then translated into Spanish in a side-by-side translation--suggest that the majority of Sahagun's questions were three-part: 1) what is a ____? 2) what is a "good" ____?, and 3) what is a "bad" ____?
Sahagún intended the General History to be an all-purpose reference book: a dictionary, a cultural snapshot for missionaries who were coming in to convert the natives, and a record of a culture to preserve it. He also worked with the Aztec very closely. The research assistants for his study were all Aztec, and he employed Aztec "feather painters" to illustrate his book. Here are some of their beautiful illustrations:
Very simply, Sahagún created a survey that he administered to the Aztecs about a wide range of topics. He administered the survey in their native language, Nahuatl, and he interviewed a wide range of people (including women). The survey was very simple in its basic premise. The written responses--given in Nahuatl and then translated into Spanish in a side-by-side translation--suggest that the majority of Sahagun's questions were three-part: 1) what is a ____? 2) what is a "good" ____?, and 3) what is a "bad" ____?
Sahagún intended the General History to be an all-purpose reference book: a dictionary, a cultural snapshot for missionaries who were coming in to convert the natives, and a record of a culture to preserve it. He also worked with the Aztec very closely. The research assistants for his study were all Aztec, and he employed Aztec "feather painters" to illustrate his book. Here are some of their beautiful illustrations:
The attorney
The solicitor
The virtuous daughter
Good and bad sons
Female physicians
A person suffering from possession, turned into an animal
A female weaver
It is really useful to ask students to articulate what the responses suggest is valued in certain groups. You can look at professions, at age groups, at gender groups, etc. Students can pick up patterns such as children are expected to be obedient (no matter the gender), and adulthood seems to be measured according to whether or not a person is responsible for teaching a younger generation. That is, adulthood is measured by having had children or by adopting children from other family members. It is also useful to think about similarities and differences between our culture and the Aztec culture. Although there are definite differences (according to the General History, a "good" grandfather is one who beats one with nettles!), there are also many, many similarities between our culture and theirs. This document suggests and invites empathy with the Aztecs.
World Digital Library offers high resolution scans of all volumes at The Florentine Codex, named for the best preserved copy of Sahagún's book (located at a library in Florence).
I find it very useful to compare and contrast Cabeza de Vaca and Sahagún, especially around the concept of empathy. I use the following as a paper prompt: Compare and contrast the representation of the Native Americans that we see in Cabeza de Vaca and in Sahagún. How does the form of these two texts (the method the writers use to present information) affect the content of their writing (the actual description of the New World and its inhabitants)?
The two forms are so different: one is a series of definitions and the other is a series of event set into narrative form like an adventure story. The former highlights Sahagún's willing decision to empathize with the Aztecs (even in their own language and giving preference to their own words) whereas the other shows Cabeza de Vaca as he is forced to undergo a partial (but still incomplete) process of acculturation to the native cultures of the American Southwest.
World Digital Library offers high resolution scans of all volumes at The Florentine Codex, named for the best preserved copy of Sahagún's book (located at a library in Florence).
I find it very useful to compare and contrast Cabeza de Vaca and Sahagún, especially around the concept of empathy. I use the following as a paper prompt: Compare and contrast the representation of the Native Americans that we see in Cabeza de Vaca and in Sahagún. How does the form of these two texts (the method the writers use to present information) affect the content of their writing (the actual description of the New World and its inhabitants)?
The two forms are so different: one is a series of definitions and the other is a series of event set into narrative form like an adventure story. The former highlights Sahagún's willing decision to empathize with the Aztecs (even in their own language and giving preference to their own words) whereas the other shows Cabeza de Vaca as he is forced to undergo a partial (but still incomplete) process of acculturation to the native cultures of the American Southwest.
Historical relativists would urge us to keep these offenses in perspective. It was another era, they remind us, when men were governed by different moral and ethical codes.
--Ian Toll
The prompt, and indeed the entire unit, help to combat the "historical relativists" who excuse the darker side of the colonialist project as critiqued by Bartolomé de las Casas. We see that there was a vibrant and discursive debate about how the Spanish should interact with Native Americans and even moments of questioning why the Spanish would want to conquer the New World at all. Underlying these moments of questioning is the quiet insistence that Native Americans count as humans, and that the Spanish are opening themselves up to condemnation by history and the world for greed and barbarity. Such a pedagogical move might even make students question why we want to rewrite history to excuse what happened at the beginning of Europe's conquest of the Americas.
RSS Feed