Overview
Primary Source Analysis (PSA) #2
If you are new to Canvas, review the Canvas Student Guide Assignment Submissions Video
PSA #2: Spiritual Conquest
Overview: The Spanish with their indigenous allies have defeated the rulership of the Mexica/Aztecs. The indigenous allies who took down the Mexica/Aztecs were put into power as there were more indigenous peoples than Spaniards. Despite the political conquest over the Mexica/Aztecs, the Spaniards now sought to eradicate their religious beliefs. For the PSA, we are reading all of the primary sources, using lecture, readings, and video clips to assist with the analysis, and answering the prompt question.
Prompt Question: Prompt: Was the Spiritual Conquest successful and how did indigenous groups respond to it?
Instructions:
• Make sure to cite the primary sources using in-text citations, (Doc 1) for "Francisco de los Angeles, Orders Give to the Twelve" and (Doc 2) for Fray Jeronimo de Mendieta, “The Spiritual Conquest”, and for Santa Muerte, use (Art 1) for the first article and (Art 2) for the second article.
• Make sure the paper submission is 2 pages in long (250 word count) and double-spaced.
• This is not a research paper, so no work cited page is needed and what is really important is your own analysis of the two primary sources.I ATTACHED SLIDE 16
Required Primary Sources:
Doc 1: Francisco de los Angeles, Orders Give to the Twelve, 1523
“Wherefore, having knowledge of your good life and proof of your goodness, and having learned and known from your deeds that you are worthy of the banner of the King Of Glory, which you want to raise up in faraway places, and hold up and sustain, flourish and defend even unto death-therefore, confiding in the divine bounty, I send you to convert with words and example the people who do not know Jesus Christ Our Lord, who are held fast in the blindness of idolatry under the yoke of the satanic thrall, who live and dwell in the Indies which are commonly called Yucatan or New Spain or Tierra Firme. … And because you will for a long time endure such great hardships and continuous vigils and cares in carrying out and executing such a great commission and trust [converting the Mexica], do not let them weaken or exhaust your spirit, but rather find it realized and every day more renewed and more complete and fully availing itself of merit. … Go, therefore, my much beloved sons, with the blessing of your father, to carry out what I have commanded you; and armed with the shield of faith and with the breastplate of justice, with the blade of the spirit of salvation, with the helmet and lance of perseverance, struggle with that ancient serpent which seeks and hastens to lord himself over, and gain the victory over, the souls redeemed with the most precious Blood of Christ. And win them for that Christ in such a manner that among all Catholics an increase of faith, hope, and love may result; and to the perfidious infidels [Mexica] a road may be opened for them and pointed out; and the madness of heretical evil may fall apart and come to nothing; and the foolishness of the gentiles [Protestants] may be made manifest to them, and the light of the Catholic faith may shine forth in their hearts. And you shall receive the eternal kingdom.”
Doc 2: Fray Jeronimo de Mendieta,“The Spiritual Conquest” (1550s)
“Although on the one hand these servants of God were heartily content at seeing how the people attended their sermons and listened to their doctrine, on the other hand they suspected that the Indians might be attending church merely to comply superficially with the orders given them by their nobles in order to deceive the friars, and that this might not be a sincere movement by the people to seek the remedy for their souls by renouncing the worship of the idols. And the friars persuaded themselves that this was indeed the case, for they were told that, while in public the Indians no longer made their old sacrifices, which usually involved the killing of men, in the secret spaces of the hills and in fearful, remote places, and at night in the temples of the demons which were still standing, they continued to make their sacrifices, and in the temples they performed their old ceremonies, chants, and drunken celebrations…the friars agreed to begin destroying the temples [in 1525], and not to stop until they were all burned to the ground and the idols likewise destroyed and eradicated, even though in doing this they would place themselves in mortal danger…The friars took with them the children and young men they had raised and instructed, the sons of the Indian lords and nobles…and they also received help from the common people who were already converted and wanted to prove that they were confirmed in the faith. And this they ordered done at a time when those who might have opposed them were distracted by other things. And since in most cases they used fire, which burned rapidly, there could be no resistance. And so fell the walls…with voices of praise and shouts of joy from the faithful children, while those who remained outside the faith were frightened and stupefied, and the wings of their hearts (as they say) were broken at seeing their temples and gods brought down. Regarding this heroic exploit, some [conquistadors] wished to argue with the friars by saying, first, that it was a rash deed, for it might anger and incite the Indians who might kill them; and second, that they could not in good conscience do such damage to the buildings they destroyed, and to the clothing and finery and things that decorated the idols and the temples that now burned and were lost…The friars, however, were not afraid, first because they were not afraid of dying for the love of God…But then the infidels [Mexicas], seeing their principal temples laid waste, lost hear in the performance of their idolatry, and from that time forward the way was opened to demolish what remained of idolatry.”
(Excerpt taken from The Mexico Reader, 117-119)
Doc 3:
Santa Muerte
The following articles look at the interesting devotion to Santa Muerte (Saint Death) in Mexico. Though the articles are from the present they contain elements related to the Spiritual Conquest.
*Cult. Now, the term cult comes for the Latin cultus, meaning To Care For. Like Agriculture means Care For The Earth. For academics, we use this term for religious practitioners, so the Cult of Santa Muerte care for the saint by prayers and offerings.
Article 1: BBC News (Art 1)
This give a general overview of the Cult of Santa Muerte, from its historical roots in the worship of "Mictecacihuatl, an Aztec goddess who presided over a festival of death every August."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-41804243
Article 2: Catholic News Agency (Art 2)
This article provides a different opinion of the veneration of Santa Muerte from the current Catholic Church and provides us with understanding of persistence of the Spiritual Conquest.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/34832/have-you-heard-of-saint-death-dont-pray-to-her
NOW FOR THE SECOND ASSIGNMENT/PAPER:
Overview: The following sources are influenced by the European Enlightenment era. The sources cover topics from the ideal form of government, slavery, and education. Other topics not included here were religion and economics. As you read the sources, look for how these philosophers are trying to change their society, to improve it and how their society has influenced their ideas.
Primary Source Analysis (PSA) #3
If you are new to Canvas, review the Canvas Student Guide Assignment Submissions Video
PSA #3: The Enlightenment
Directions:
• Make sure to cite the primary sources using in-text citations, (Doc 1) for Thomas Hobbes "Leviathan" and (Doc 2) for Mary Wollstonecraft, "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman" and (Doc 3) for Jean Jacques Rousseau: "The Social Contract"
• Make sure the paper submission is 2 pages in long (250 word count) and double-spaced.
• This is not a research paper, so no work cited page is needed and what is really important is your own analysis of the three primary sources.
So, deep breath and put on our detective hat and squeeze as much information out of the sources as possible. You got this!
If you need a quick refresher on the Enlightenment, watch this short video clip. Start at 1:30 https://youtu.be/1Ef0erm_KQI?si=8ctABxRYsIYeExHX
The Enlightenment
Prompt: What issues mattered for these Enlightenment philosophers?
SBE submissions should have the following:
- The main argument that answers the prompt question and that which you underline or highlight once in the introduction.
- Use all 3 required primary sources.
- Lecture PPT, video clips, and readings should be included.
- Parenthetical citation for lecture PPT: (Mod. #) and for the required primary sources, use their Doc number in parenthetical citation, for example (Doc 1).
- Have an introduction (which includes answer to the prompt), body paragraphs (analysis of the sources with support from the lecture PPT, readings, and videos), and a conclusion (which is just rewording your answer to the prompt and wrapping up the main ideas.
Required Primary Sources:
Doc 1: Thomas Hobbes, excerpt from The Leviathan
For Hobbes, the English Civil War significantly shaped his worldview. In response, he developed a political philosophy that emphasized three key concepts: The natural state of mankind (the “state of nature”) is a state of war of one man against another, as man is selfish and brutish. The way out of the “state of nature” is a “social contract,” to be agreed upon by the people to be governed and the government. The ideal form that government should take is an absolute monarchy that has maximum authority, subverting mankind’s natural state and creating societal order in the process.
The first maketh men invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, for reputation. The first use violence, to make themselves masters of other men's persons, wives, children, and cattle; the second, to defend them; the third, for trifles, as a word, a smile, a different opinion, and any other sign of undervalue, either direct in their persons or by reflection in their kindred, their friends, their nation, their profession, or their name…
And because the condition of man (as hath been declared in the precedent chapter) is a condition of war of every one against everyone, in which case every one is governed by his own reason, and there is nothing he can make use of that may not be a help unto him in preserving his life against his enemies; it followeth that in such a condition every man has a right to every thing, even to one another's body. And therefore, as long as this natural right of every man to every thing endureth, there can be no security to any man, how strong or wise soever he be, of living out the time which nature ordinarily alloweth men to live. And consequently it is a precept, or general rule of reason: that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war. The first branch of which rule containeth the first and fundamental law of nature, which is: to seek peace and follow it. The second, the sum of the right of nature, which is: by all means we can to defend ourselves
.Doc 2: Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792)
A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, published by the English writer and reformer Mary Wollstonecraft in 1792, is one of the earliest feminist essays. According to this excerpt, how did Wollstonecraft feel about the education of women?
I Have sighed when obliged to confess that either nature has made a great difference between man and man or that the civilization which has hitherto taken place in the world has been very partial. I have turned over various books written on the subject of education, and patiently observed the conduct of parents and the management of schools; but what has been the result?—a profound conviction that the neglected education of my fellow creatures is the grand source of the misery I deplore; and that women, in particular, are rendered weak and wretched by a variety of concurring causes, originating from one hasty conclusion. The conduct and manners of women, in fact, evidently prove that their minds are not in a healthy state; for, like the flowers which are planted in too rich a soil, strength and usefulness are sacrificed to beauty; and the flaunting leaves, after having pleased a fastidious eye, fade, disregarded on the stalk, long before the season when they ought to have arrived at maturity. One cause of this barren blooming I attribute to a false system of education, gathered from the books written on this subject by men who, considering females rather as women than human creatures, have been more anxious to make them alluring mistresses than affectionate wives and rational mothers; . . . the civilized women of the present century, with a few exceptions, are only anxious to inspire love, when they ought to cherish a nobler ambition, and by their abilities and virtues exact respect. . . .
Yet, because I am a woman, I would not lead my readers to suppose that I mean violently to agitate the contested question respecting the equality or inferiority of the sex; but . . . I shall stop a moment to deliver, in a few words, my opinion. In the government of the physical world it is observable that the female in point of strength is, in general, inferior to the male. This is the law of nature; and it does not appear to be suspended or abrogated [abolished] in favor of woman. A degree of physical superiority cannot, therefore, be denied— and it is a noble prerogative [right]! But not content with this natural preeminence, men endeavor to sink us still lower, merely to render us alluring objects for a moment; and women, . . . do not seek to obtain a durable interest in [men’s] hearts, or to become the friends of the fellow creatures who find amusement in their society.
I am aware of an obvious inference: from every quarter have I heard exclamations against masculine women; but where are they to be found? If by this appellation [name] men mean to inveigh [protest] against their ardor in hunting, shooting, and gam ing, I shall most cordially join in the cry; but if it be against the imitation of manly virtues, or, more properly speaking, the attainment of those talents and virtues, the exercise of which ennobles the human character, and which raise females in the scale of animal being, when they are comprehensively termed mankind; all those who view them with a philosophic eye must, I should think, wish with me that they may every day grow more and more masculine.
from Barbara H. Solomon and Paula S. Berggren, eds., A Mary Wollstonecraft Reader (New York: New American Library, 1983), 267–269.
Doc 3: Jean Jacques Rousseau: The Social Contract, 1762
Chapter IV: Slavery
Since no man has a natural authority over his fellow, and force creates no right, we must conclude that conventions form the basis of all legitimate authority among men…
To say that a man gives himself gratuitously, is to say what is absurd and inconceivable; such an act is null and illegitimate, from the mere fact that he who does it is out of his mind. To say the same of a whole people is to suppose a people of madmen; and madness creates no right. …
To renounce liberty is to renounce being a man, to surrender the rights of humanity and even its duties. For him who renounces everything no indemnity is possible. Such a renunciation is incompatible with man's nature; to remove all liberty from his will is to remove all morality from his acts. …
Grotius [17th c. Dutch philosopher] and the rest find in war another origin for the so- called right of slavery. The victor having, as they hold, the right of killing the vanquished, the latter can buy back his life at the price of his liberty; and this convention is the more legitimate because it is to the advantage of both parties.
But it is clear that this supposed right to kill the conquered is by no means deducible from the state of war. Men, from the mere fact that, while they are living in their primitive independence, they have no mutual relations stable enough to constitute either the state of peace or the state of war, cannot be naturally enemies. War is constituted by a relation between things, and not between persons; and, as the state of war cannot arise out of simple personal relations, but only out of real relations, private war, or war of man with man, can exist neither in the state of nature, where there is no constant property, nor in the social state, where everything is under the authority of the laws. Individual combats, duels and encounters, are acts which cannot constitute a state; while the private wars, authorised by the Establishments of Louis IX, King of France, and suspended by the Peace of God, are abuses of feudalism, in itself an absurd system if ever there was one, and contrary to the principles of natural right and to all good polity.
War then is a relation, not between man and man but between State and State, and individuals are enemies only accidentally, not as men, nor even as citizens, but as soldiers; not as members of their country, but as its defenders. Finally, each State can have for enemies only other States, and not men; for between things disparate in nature there can be no real relation. …
The right of conquest has no foundation other than the right of the strongest. If war does not give the conqueror the right to massacre the conquered peoples, the right to enslave them cannot be based upon a right which does not exist. No one has a right to kill an enemy except when he cannot make him a slave, and the right to enslave him cannot therefore be derived from the right to kill him. It is accordingly an unfair exchange to make him buy at the price of his liberty his life, over which the victor holds no right. Is it not clear that there is a vicious circle in founding the right of life and death on the right of slavery, and the right of slavery on the right of life and death?
Even if we assume this terrible right to kill everybody, I maintain that a slave made in war, or a conquered people, is under no obligation to a master, except to obey him as far as he is compelled to do so. By taking an equivalent for his life, the victor has not done him a favour; instead of killing his without profit, he has killed him usefully. So far then is he from acquiring over him any authority in addition to that of force, that the state of war continues to subsist between them: their mutual relation is the effect of it, and the usage of the right of war does not imply a treaty of peace. A convention has indeed been made; but this convention, so far from destroying the state of war, presupposes its continuance.
So, from whatever aspect we regard the question, the right of slavery is null and void, not only as being illegitimate, but also because it is absurd and meaningless. The words slave and right contradict each other, and are mutually exclusive. It will always be equally foolish for a man to say to a man or to a people: "I make with you a convention wholly at your expense and wholly to my advantage; I shall keep it as long as I like, and you will keep it as long as I like."