The Spanish Conquest Rhetorical Analysis

With the Spanish conquest in Latin America came many accounts from both Spanish and indigenous writers. These primary sources are not only useful because of their content, but also because of their omissions. That is to say that the discrepancies found among writers of different class, race, or political position, are expressive of their individual biases. Analyzing what these variations are and why they exist allows for a deeper understanding of the history of this colonial period. Especially in understanding the opinions and perspectives of one group upon another, and how these perspectives are perpetuated. The contrasting accounts occur not only between the conquistadores and the indigenous people, but also within the ranks of the Spaniards.
This can be seen during the conquest of Mexico, and the three main accounts from the writings of Cortés, Díaz del Castillo, and the Florentine Codex. Ultimately, the accounts of these various actors coupled with the consideration of their political circumstances allow us to understand the views of the groups, and how they cast and sustain a perception of inhumanity on one another. The varying depictions of first encounters between Spaniards and the indigenous people of Mexico during the conquest speaks strongly to the goals and attitudes of the writers, along with the groups they represent.
It is important to keep the ideas of the audience and rhetoric at the forefront of consideration in all three differing accounts. These writers, specifically the two conquistadores, were benefited by the fact that they are writing ‘eyewitness’ accounts with nobody to determine the veracity of their claims. Therefore, any biases should be perceived through their effort to convince their audience and what they hope to accomplish. Hernán Cortés’ letter to the crown describing the first encounters with the Mexica natives is brief, yet his message is clear. He recounts that on his journey to Tenochtitlan a number of Moctezuma’s emissaries met with him with great respect however their leader “ begged [Cortés], not to go [to Tenochtitlan], for [he] would suffer many hardships”, yet despite their protests still “gave [him] some three or four thousand castellanos and some clothing and slave girls, and made [him] very welcome” (Cortés, 16-17). With his series of lines, and the entire passage more generally, Cortés is purposefully making two things clear to the crown. He is saying that the Mexica are not only fearful, but also wealthy, therefore making them ideal targets for conquest. Through this narrative, Cortés is attempting to garner continued Spanish support by
making conquest seem simple and fruitful. Bernal Díaz del Castillo has different goals and subsequently his written account strays from Cortés’. Bernal Díaz wants to persuade his readers of his heroism and that of the typical spanish conquistador while also ensuring his ‘triumphs’ were acknowledged. This is obviously reflected in the tone and diction of his narrative. On the entrance into Mexico, Bernal Díaz asks the reader, “What men in all the world have shown such daring?” referring to the Spanish soldiers (Díaz, 25). He also spends a great deal describing the stockpiled weaponry, saying that the “ [there was] a sort of broadsword, and two handed swords set with flint blades that cut much better than our swords” (Díaz, 31). Considering the differing political circumstances the two Spaniards faced, it is easy to derive the reasons for the discrepancy between the two accounts. The authors use their depiction of ‘the other’ as a rhetorical tool. For Cortés its beneficial to depict the mexica as weak and rich, and for Bernal Díaz to bolster the boldness, it helps to depict the indigenous people as strong and numerous. For these reasons we can see how the perception and depiction of ‘the other’ for the Spaniards was highly influenced by their own desires and goals. This perception of ‘the other’ is a common theme in the all three perspectives as the narrative of conquest proceeds. The narrative of cultural barbarity and savagery are highly evident in the texts which offers indication on the perspectives of the authors and their groups, especially in relation to each other.
With analysis the notion of barbarity becomes highly evident and how the two groups perceive and construct that notion. From the Nahua perspective. the seizure of Moteuczoma is synonymous with Spaniard greed, as if their leader is only an obstacle towards the ultimate Spaniard goal of wealth. In the Nahuat account it is stated that “immediately [the conquistadores] seized Moteuczoma” and only moments later were brought to the treasure stockpiles where they stripped the metals and “right away they set [it] on fire...ignited all the different precious things” and proceeded to take “everything they saw that pleased them” (Florentine Codex, 55-56). The way the Nahuat perceived Spanish greed is also revealed in the codex. Speaking of the conquistadores, they write that “gold was what they greatly thirsted for; they were gluttonous for it, starved for it, they piggishly wanted it” (52). This quote gives insight into the perception of barbarity from the indigenous side. Whereas the codex depicts a ‘lack of culture’ or barbarous behavior among the Spaniards Bernal Díaz places the same judgement upon the Mexica while simultaneously offering a much different account of the capture of Moteuczoma. Bernal Díaz said the seizure occurred much later and only once it was entirely necessary.
Additionally Díaz claims that “Cortés and the rest of us did our best to provide him with all possible attentions and amusements, and he was put under no restraint” (40). This story is far different from that of the codex. Bernal Díaz also spends much of his narrative condemning the cultural practices of the Mexica as barbaric. Specifically, “the sacrifice of human beings and the eating of their flesh” and the sale of “ many canoe-loads of human excrement” (Bernal Díaz, 30,34). The offenses (greed in the case of the Spaniards and cannibalism for the Mexica) are both used to paint the differing group as uncivilised/barbaric from a cultural perspective. Another common theme in the works is the depiction of violence to construct the other as immoral or cruel.
Violence was a large component of Spanish conquest as well as the narratives it produced. Both Spanish writers seem to omit any violence imposed upon indigenous bodies, and instead focus on the violence perpetrated by them. This is achieved through Bernal Díaz’s focused description of human sacrifice and cannibalism. He describes the ceremony, stating that they would “strike open the wretched Indian's chest with flint knives and hastily tear out the palpitating heart” and then “cut off the arms, thighs, and head, eating the arms and thighs”, describing the entire process as “ so appalling that one seemed to be in hell” (32). He speaks of cannibalism on other occasions, and although cannibalism was practiced in indigenous Mexico in historical retrospect, certainly not on the scale nor with the nonchalance that Díaz describes. These tactics certainly work to undermine the morality and humanity of the Mexica and offer justification for conquest. The codex offers its own portrayal of violence. Speaking of the Spaniards the account states that during the ceremony when they attacked, “they struck a drummer's arms; both of his hands were severed. Then they struck his neck; his head landed far away. Then they stabbed everyone with iron lances and struck them with iron swords.” (32). The account goes on to describe the utter annihilation of these people during their peaceful ceremony of the feast of Huitzilopochtli. This depiction of violence from both sides is important for sustaining the narrative of savagery. Bernal Díaz uses it to justify his actions and simultaneously bolster his accomplishments, both of which benefit him when considering his political circumstance. As for the Nahuatl people, their perspectives should perhaps be taken a bit more seriously because they lacked the opportunity for tremendous gain. Notwithstanding, their biases must also be taken into account. In both circumstances violence is important for sustaining the narrative of barbarity. These primary accounts perform a valuable function for analyzation. They are after all, written by people, flawed as anyone else. The political circumstances of the Spanish writers play more deeply into the biases produced in their respective works and this can be easily be viewed by the language in the texts. The Nahuatl accounts are imparted by a ravaged and oppressed people, however does not grant them immunity from inaccuracies. Both sides garner their own levels of truth and faults, yet they garner important insights into how each group refers to and perceives ‘the other’. The construction of culture and how these cultures clash is also an important focal point. The narrative of barbarity implies a lack of culture. Both sides apply this ideal through their own cultural lens upon each other, and successfully construct narratives that evaluate these cultural differences, often coming to negative conclusions.