Cartagena

Much of the early colonial evidence about Indians’ behavior under the influence of alcohol comes from the reports of political officials and priests. The statements lean towards excessive drinking and general indictments of pulque and tepache as the cause of all sins and social problems, including idolatry, rebellion, poverty, illness, violent crime, infidelity, and incest. Spaniards generally thought of a Mediterranean ideal of drinking as being able to “hold” their liquor without losing control of their dignified demeanor and “natural reason.” From the history of Teposcolula, Spanish wine and the movement of non-Indians in the countryside exposed native peasants to certain models of drinking behavior, which at times were rejected. When a
mulata had moved into the community, that person was constantly reported to be drunk, abusive, and violent, while encouraging a few women in the local area to join drinking sprees. Behavior started changing because “it proves in the 1600s the Indian town council of Achiutla, also in the Mixteca Alta, took the extra step by reporting a local Indian to the alcalde mayor for chronic drunkenness and abusive behavior. According to the reports, the Indian had become a serious problem that the community could not resolve on its own.” Pg 44 The type of evidence of problem drinking in the early colonial period is a daybook by alcalde mayor of Yanhuitlan on individuals whom he encountered in municipal jails during his circuit of the Mixteca Alta from September 9, 1606, to November 19, 1608. In this period of time, the alcalde mayor encountered 189 individuals under arrest in the villages. 82 had committed drink-related offenses. Forty-five of the 82 drinker-offenders have been arrested for simple drunkenness. Of the offenses, 14 were disorderly as well as drunk. A set of 13 of the 82 were arrested for illegal sale of liquor. The remaining 24 drink-related cases, 16 were assaults, four were disrespect to community officials, verbal abuse to a citizen, and three wives were deserted by their loved ones.
The relationship between alcohol and violence seems to be different in the two regions. Only 14 of 81 homicides (17 per cent) and 19 of 97 assaults (19.5 per cent) were alcohol related. Homicide and assault cases reveal cultural rules, attitudes, and beliefs about alcohol. Drunkenness as personal violence were both more numerous (forty-six cases) and these cases occurred in central Mexico than Mixteca Alta. It proves that men would use their drunkenness as an excuse claiming they do not remember anything because “loss of memory was the standard claim. Six of the central Mexico offenders remembered their violent acts clearly and blamed alcohol that had unlocked their animal passions, making them blind with rage, provocative, or hot-tempered and altered.” Pg 64 But another Indian pinpointed there was no anger involved, “only drunkenness.” The pleasure of what they would get out of drinking is “Alcohol was blamed for the general way: He did what his drunken state dictated. The male offenders claimed to be insane by the alcohol, using phrases as “out of my mind,” “confused state of mind,” and “I didn’t know what I was doing.” Pg. 64 in five of the twelve Mixteca cases in the ones accused stated alcohol were the reason why the crimes occurred, the offenders claimed to have total loss of memory. In five other cases, he stated he was “out of his mind” and did not have control over his actions. In eighteen other cases from central Mexico, the court-appointed defense attorneys explained the drunkenness issue after the preliminary confession and prompted clients with phrases as: “He was so drunk and so beyond himself that he behaved like a lunatic, like an automaton or a brutal machine whose movements were completely lacking in reason and free will.” Pg. 65 Although trial records can overreact on peasant attitudes about alcohol as the blame for crime, Indians, in central Mexico, began to adopt the Spanish view that alcohol was able to disappear one’s judgement and good sense and could, alone, cause crime. The most valuable evidence that I know alcohol was the excuse on peoples behaviors was “Into popular beliefs about alcohol comes from four central Mexico assault cases explaining the victims and the offenders states that the offenders’ drunken state was the cause for the attack that occurred.” Pg. 65 Frequent village drinking and the symbolic importance of pulque reflected villages to the change-also to the disasters of epidemic disease, resettlement, and colonial labor systems, and the confusion of the rural life in the early colonial period.
The actions by men in defense of their honor created many court cases involving sexuality.
In the seventeenth-century Cartagena, defending one’s personal and household honor led to public acts of violence and even homicide. Offenses against a man’s honor basically provoked anger and desire for an apology, but individuals and public authorities manipulated violations of the honor code. Self-protection on bureaucratic hierarchies was one of the most effective ways to manipulate justice in colonial Spanish America, even when men would use their horrifying acts as torture. The honor men had was taken very seriously against women because “It proves Maria Manuel who was a woman living in Cartagena in the early 1600s, suffered horrible physical abuse due to her master’s sexual jealousy.” Pg. 55 The defense of a male honor came from elite status and privilege in a combination with sexual jealousy, motivated Maria Manuel’s master to abuse her. The ordeals were taken into place because her tortures justified their violence with rhetoric of honor, and that proved the sexual dominance over women. A few years later, a nuncio for the Cartagena Holy Office named Juan Ramos Perez, bought Maria Manuel. Perez eventually abused Maria, and even though a baby was created between them two, she was not happy because of the physical abuse Maria Manuel experienced. After the relations with Perez, Maria found a young Spaniard named Juan De Soto who had made a promise to marry her in front of witnesses so she could no longer live with her master’s sins. Unfortunately, for Maria, Soto fled after hearing rumors that Perez was enraged. This issue caused Maria Manuel to fall back into Perez power. Perez punished Maria by hiding her in several homes in Cartagena, and afterwards sent her to live with a family, which Maria Manuel’s sexual relation with the familiar caused her to get pregnant which then prompted a horrific response from her master. Maria was then imprisoned so she can be hidden
from others, which once she was seen in public again she was taken advantage of by the Holy Office. In all three cases, it involved men who demonstrated a sincere investment in the honor code perpetuate social and hierarchies and gender roles. The honor code did not demand men to make a special effort for their sexual impulses, but to exert themselves to protect their reputation. Elite men possessed both honor and to exploit the law in their favor. According to theory, honor was burden to a man, to protect their reputation of himself and his household. Self-defense for criminal acts of violence, honor was used in a cynical way: due to their honorable lineage, it was impossible to commit immoral acts. The manipulation of honor does not influence the behavior or the law.
As men had their own indecency on remaining their power over women, according to the The Women Of Colonial Latin America: marriage gave the husbands the power of patriarchal authority, giving the right to discipline and punish his wife. In moral economy, the wives had the