The History Book Club discussion
HISTORY OF LATIN AMERICA
>
1. LAST DAYS OF THE INCAS ~ ONE & TWO � THE DISCOVERY and A FEW HUNDRED WELL-ARMED ENTREPRENEURS � (April 7th � April 13th) ~ (1-37) ~ No Spoilers
date
newest »

All, we do not have to do citations regarding the book or the author being discussed during the book discussion on these discussion threads - nor do we have to cite any personage in the book being discussed while on the discussion threads related to this book.
However if we discuss folks outside the scope of the book or another book is cited which is not the book and author discussed then we do have to do that citation according to our citation rules. That makes it easier to not disrupt the discussion. Thought that I would add that.
However if we discuss folks outside the scope of the book or another book is cited which is not the book and author discussed then we do have to do that citation according to our citation rules. That makes it easier to not disrupt the discussion. Thought that I would add that.
I saw an immediate association to what Winston Churchill said: "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it".
And write it he did. Do you think that our version of the Incas' events were dictated by the fact that the Spanish wrote their own history of the events in their own country with their own language so that is the version that was known and History was kind to them because they wrote it?
Winston Churchill
Note: I did an author citation for these discussion threads only because I am fairly certain that Winston will not be a personage discussed in this book so he needs to be cited.
And write it he did. Do you think that our version of the Incas' events were dictated by the fact that the Spanish wrote their own history of the events in their own country with their own language so that is the version that was known and History was kind to them because they wrote it?

Note: I did an author citation for these discussion threads only because I am fairly certain that Winston will not be a personage discussed in this book so he needs to be cited.

To respond to the question that Bentley posed, I do think that our understanding of the Incas comes from what the Spanish wrote and I am assuming we need to take some of it with a grain of salt. In the preface, McQuarrie mentions that the Spaniard's reports (relaciones) were written to impress the king. (pg 2) I expect that there was some embellishment to gain favor with the king and not understanding the Inca culture likely caused them to get some facts wrong. I found it sad that the Incas oral history and quipus died out after a short time. That to me is what makes archaeology so fascinating. It is uncovering lost history and bringing it back to life. I look forward to seeing what Bingham has uncovered.





To address the issue of the one-sided viewpoints of most historical sources, we must understand that most of the history as we know it now were written from the viewpoint of the European conquerors. Modern historians have to do a lot of detective work to read between the lines. Look at how the history of India has been reinterpreted in recent years. History is a developing science (art?).
I am not sure Kathy how close MacQuarrie can come; but I think the remains that have been found pretty much tell the story of what happened to them. Technology that the Incas did not have certainly helped the Spaniards. I think that in and of itself show tactics that reinforce the account favoring the side of history MacQuarrie found himself on. Oral history according to the author thus far was not as strong as it might have been but maybe finding the Inca location after all of those years also helped move things along so that MacQuarrie would have the ability when he came along to discern the truth. With the Spaniards the ends justified the means.
By the way - I am finding this book fascinating so far and delighted that we are tackling a read based in South America.
By the way - I am finding this book fascinating so far and delighted that we are tackling a read based in South America.
I think the Spaniards saw this expedition as a business opportunity - before they even got into the boat they were already figuring out their share percentage in terms of the spoils. Almost like a bunch of pirates.
Kathy wrote: ""Bingham had been told the remarkable story of the Inca's little known rebel kingdom a year earlier, ..." (page 9)
This really floors me, that basically the Inca's story was forgotten by most of t..."
And these men came to be known as explorers who we studied and learned about in school and the poor Incas not so much. That is what floored me.
This really floors me, that basically the Inca's story was forgotten by most of t..."
And these men came to be known as explorers who we studied and learned about in school and the poor Incas not so much. That is what floored me.

Interesting post. We sift through layers of hearsay, competing perspectives, subjectivity... A history documented by literary notaries, as accounted to them by illiterate conquistadores...Everyone has a motive. "

So mostly we have the Spanish view and three indigenous views, but we are completely left without views of the women and slaves. I imagine there is so much more to the stories than we can even begin to imagine.
MacQuarrie says that an author must choose from the varying accounts to write the history. How close to the truth do you think MacQuarrie can come with so few views from others than the conquistadores? "
I found I asked myself the same question. This is an obstacle in general, when it comes to history, is it not?
Something that also stood out to me was that there was more than one reference to how the Spaniards were struck by the Indian women's beauty. It appeared to me that they viewed the women as commodities. Were they hungry for the female companionship after their travels in the company of men? And what about the women they left behind? Their mothers, daughters, and wives in their homeland? I also wonder what was it like for them in Spain with their men gone?

It seems to me that it became necessary across the globe as Europeans began to colonize newly discovered lands for them to be able to dehumanize the indigenous peoples. The slave trade required this (and the modern slave trade still relies on this). It happened in Africa, North American, the Caribbean, Central America, South America, Asia, South Asia, etc.
It may be unfair for me to say but it seems to me that the conquest of the Aztecs and, as we are reading, the Incas required a particularly harsh dehumanization of these people. If they are not considered human it then becomes logical that there is not culture or history to preserve because they are not worth the effort.
I am struggling to understand the spiritual, mental, emotional and cultural gymnastics that a person would have to through to justify this. It is the same struggle I have had since reading about genocides in Darfur, Rwanda, and Sudan.

When I read this book, I find myself comparing what the Spanish did in the Americas to what the East India Company did in India. The intention was same. However, since the conquest happened later in time and India already had a Feudal system in place, and also because the English were a little more conscious about their public image, there was no cultural destruction - only looting.

Also these types of books always raise the question for me of why were the Europeans so advanced where as these natives were still living the way they did in Bible times? I loved Columbus' description of the natives on page 20.

I think this is going to be one of our discussion points in future segments of the book as well. In some ways I welcome it abd in other ways I dread it. My undergrad is in Theology, grad work in leadership/management...I am a church leader. I welcome it because I know that for a few centuries what I am going to call the "historical church" was on a tangent that had little to do with God and it is good to recognize where things strayed and in some ways i.e. Australia's apology to the Aborigines try to make amends. What I see in the Spanish conquest is not a desire to serve the Christian God. Rather I see them using the "involvement" of the political head of the church to assuage any guilt over how indigenous peoples were to be treated. This actually requires the dehumanization I spoke of earlier. If they are not human than God cannot be mad at me for misusing/mistreating His children. Unfortunately, most people groups have much in their history that is unpleasant and even shameful. (I apologize if this post is too wordy :-) )






It was interesting to discover that Pizarro and so many of the other conquistadors came from such impoverished backgrounds. It makes sense that these were the people willing to take such extreme risks. The author tells us that Pizarro and his partner Amalgro were both illegitimate and illiterate. They were more or less freewheeling adventurers operating under the lose auspices of the Spanish government. This is not how I envisaged the conquistadors!
I agree that the Pizarro and friends did horrible things to the native peoples. Does it make any difference that they honestly believed that they were doing "God's" work? I don't think they had to convince themselves. At this time in Europe many horrible things, including burning people at the stake, were done in the name of religion.
Also, were the Inca rulers any less bloodthirsty than the Spanish? I guess we will have to read further to find out.

I also found it fascinating that many of the conquistadors, particularly the leaders, came from the same region of Spain - Extremadura. Did others of you find this interesting?

There are enough historical references for us to study and understand the gold fever/gold rush mentality. Even the old blue light special at Kmart can cause a minor stampede :-)
I think they literally did not have anything to go back to. They paid their own way to be a part of the conquest. How many of them came of those ships in the new world absolutely penniless? Perhaps even in debt to someone in the Old World.

This is a good point. Christianity is the religion referenced here because Spain was the country they came from. However, institutional religion of almost all brands (I think one could say) have things for which they are not really proud.

I think you have a really good point here. I have been thinking this as well.
Michael wrote: "@ Ann - Ann wrote: "It was interesting to discover that Pizarro and so many of the other conquistadors came from such impoverished backgrounds."
I also found it fascinating that many of the conqui..."
Michael I found that very interesting. I asked myself what was there about this area that produced so many?
I also found it fascinating that many of the conqui..."
Michael I found that very interesting. I asked myself what was there about this area that produced so many?

We are glad to have you here Robyn and I am enjoying very much everybody's spirited discussion of this book.
Believe me it is hard tapping on the iPhone app (between uncoordinated fingers and bad eyesight) - you can be doomed (lol)

I have read that the Extremadura area of Spain is one of the poorest parts of the country. I suppose the success of early conquistadors from that area also inspired their compatriots.

You made good points about Pizzaro's advanced (for the times) age and the fact that he was motivated by more than just greed. He must have had a thirst for glory, as well as remarkable self-confidence in the face of tremendous risks.
Maybe his low status as an illegitimate son spurred him on to prove himself. It's interesting that he surrounded himself with his younger half-brothers in his expeditions to conquer the Incas.


Francisco's mother was a maid in the Pizarro household and he tended the family livestock when he was young. His father was a soldier.
Of the 4 brothers who helped in the conquest of Peru, only Hernando was legitimate. The other 3 were illegitimate, like Francisco. 3 out of 4 were half brothers on Francisco's father's side. One was a half-brother on his mother's side.
Kind of a complicated family situation, eh?


The fact that Hiram Bingham had not even thought to pack a lunch for his trek (loc 234) showed that he did not believe he would find anything of significance. Can you imagine his astonishment when he discovered the ruins? He does a great deal describing what he saw, but not as much how he felt. I wonder at what point he realized he might actually find something incredible? Was it when Melchor Arteaga told him so or did he really believe it then?
In chapter 2 Pizarro's background was surprising and interesting to me. Some of the conquistadors were wealthy, however he was not nor could he read. Given the time, it is easy to see why Pizarro chose to join the military (almost certain death) to move up in society (loc 446). It was surprising and new to me that the vast majority of Spaniards traveled to the New World as private citizens hoping to acquire wealth and higher status than they had grown up with (loc 506). Although unfortunate and terribly sad, it helps to understand the brutality some of the Spaniards demonstrated towards the indigenous people. It's almost as if they were willing to do whatever it took to return home to a perceived better life, even if it meant believing that it was God's work, according the to the king. I have to ask myself how many of them truly believed this or made them do so to justify violent acts, especially since they were probably easily manipulated. I am excited to read on and discover answers.

Michael, I couldn't agree with you more. I was just about to say that I feel the government was far more responsible for the violent acts than God or religion. Those in leadership and of wealth spoke of God to influence citizens to follow them and join them in the fight. Like I said in my post, it is easier to see how the conquistadors were so easily influenced. They were poor and many illiterate which means they were probably uneducated in other ways and most likely easily pursued to begin with. Not to say that they didn't make their own choices or that they were poor ones, but they were controlled by wealthier more powerful leaders. One of God's greatest gifts is to allow us to make our own choices even if they're terrible.

The "Colonial Policeman" is almost always from the lowest strata of European society. He travels to the New World in the hope of gaining that status among the "natives" - who, being outside the "civilised" European society, can be dealt with at their pleasure. To justify their actions, they drag God into it. The Spanish were probably more brutal than the rest - though I could give you hair-raising stories about the Portugese in India!

I felt a little bad for Poma de Ayala. He spent most of his life trying to record accounts of what happened only to have his manuscript be forgotten for hundreds of years (p4). I'm glad that some of pictures in this book are from his manuscript.
I am excited to read this book to discover what is known about the Incas, and how much of their story will remain a mystery.


I agree. I'd read about his grandfather, the first missionary to settle Hawaii, in Unfamiliar Fishes by Sarah Vowell. It was a fairly unflattering portrait, which is corroborated by this book, which said that the younger Hiram Bingham couldn't wait to get away from his missionary family. And if he turns out to have an anti-imperialist attitude, that was probably the influence of his early life in Hawaii, too.
Citation:



Citation:




Books mentioned in this topic
Outliers: The Story of Success (other topics)Unfamiliar Fishes (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Malcolm Gladwell (other topics)Sarah Vowell (other topics)
Winston S. Churchill (other topics)
What did you think about how the story even originated - fascinating?