I must admit that I did not enjoy the topics our readings covered this past week in any particular way. That is not to say, by any means, that I found the information put me into a mood of disinterest. Who wouldn’t find something engaging to study when covering the efforts and accusations of the Inquisition? To me, the most intriguing facet of the inquisition’s escapades was the deplorable methodology implemented by the Catholic Church. The forced confessions of Marina de San Miguel serve as a superb example of said methodology. Firstly, countless peoples brought before the leaders of the Inquisition were captured, or arrested, in secrecy and held in secret prisons. Think about that for a moment, it is a SECRET PRISON in which the detainees were often contained. Its secrecy of these institutions would seemingly imply that the detainees were most likely robbed of socializing with peers, hygienic living conditions, perhaps even of daylight.
What was even more odious was the means by which the inquisitors extracted information and confessions from those being held. The majority of prisoners being held for questioning were typically given completely open ended questions such as, “why are you here?” Utilizing a system of coercion and repression, both of which were essential tactics of the Inquisition, will always lead to submission and a loss of willpower. These were the two pillars upon which the power of the Inquisition stood. For while many, if not most, of the Inquisition’s victims were originally detained for specific reasons, the church would simply subject them to elongated forms of suffering until information was attained. Furthermore, this information would hardly ever contain the slightest hint of truth! The human imagination is capable of producing any story or image, especially when contained to a prison cell. Naturally, in desperate attempts at liberation by any means possible, those detained would commonly give information of their own personal enemies, friends, neighbors, or family members. Not unlike what detainees said of themselves, the validity of these stories was normally subjective. In retrospect, I find it very difficult to fathom the immediate and long-term results of these religious endeavors. What began as efforts to oust heretics gradually became diluted by cruel tactics and abusive treatment of religious prisoners. Coupling these implements of torture and strict living conditions with attempts to gather incriminating evidence and information on others, who had not been captured, ultimately morphed the Inquisition into little more than a political and religious fiasco.
Having read and then reread the bizarre case against Michaela de Molina in early Guatemala I must admit that I came out skeptical of the case in its entirety for several reasons. First, however, I must describe my feelings towards Molina as well as all others involved in her strange case. Molina herself did not appear, to me, to have the makings of a malicious character, much less a witch. As for the others, I frankly did not find that there was sufficient written evidence to make an assessment of them. However it was clear that Maria de la Candelaria as well as Dona Juana Gonzalez were not particularly inclined to show any favoritism towards Mullatas given their assumptions that Candelaria’s illness was the result of witchcraft practiced by Molina. Witchcraft was, of course, the accusation brought against Molina by Dr. Don Joseph de Banos. The alleged curse placed upon Candelaria was indeed dire causing her to expel blood, rags, soap, charcoal, and various other objects and fluids from her nostrils and mouth.
Delving into the details of the actual investigation, it became clear from a great deal of witness testimony that Candelaria and Molina had previously quarreled over their separate relationships with an Indian man named Pablo Vallejo. One of these altercations erupted shortly before Candelaria birthed a child. In the three months following the birth of this child, Candelaria suffered greatly from the various symptoms that I have already listed. The testimony of Candelaria and her mistress Juana Gonzalez, it became evident to me, quite quickly, that they both held negatively slanted opinions of Molina. I felt that they each suspected her as being the source of Candelaria’s symptoms (which, I should point out, are ludicrous). However, the final testimony given by Dona Rafaela Gonzalez, the niece of Juana Gonzalez, revealed an intriguing fact that the other two witnesses failed to mention, that being that shortly after learning of Candelaria’s sickness, Molina appeared at the house of Juana Gonzalez to apologize and cite that she was not responsible. Rather, the one to be held accountable for Candelaria’s ailment was an Indian woman named Teresa, who was the mother of Pablo Vallejo.
As for my thoughts on the case, I believe that it was largely a scheme plotted and carried out by Juana Gonzalez and Candelaria against Molina. Firstly, it is naturally impossible for things such as soap, charcoal, and rags to spontaneously occur in one’s stomach. Much less expel through said person’s nostrils. However, in an age in which superstition warranted a much greater deal of authority, these were believable claims in when citing witchcraft. I suspect the origins of the devious plan are rooted in the violent dispute between Molina and Candelaria over the Indian man, Pablo.
Our readings this week were very insightful in regards to the study of homosexuality and its acceptance, or lack thereof, in early Latin America. I am of the opinion that, historically speaking of course, Western societies have grossly misinterpreted homosexuals and their practices. For instance, in innumerable cases of homosexual males being persecuted for their actions authorities conducting investigations of said actions attempted to determine whom in the relationship had acted as the male figure as well as who acted as the female. This was done so that the moral perpetrator behaving as the female may be more harshly punished, as they had knowingly committed the offense not only of homosexuality but crossing the gender lines as well, taking on the role of a woman. This naturally was also considered a grave breach of moral codes of conduct. Or, at the very least, this was unarguably an example of social deviance by way of gender bending.
Even today, in our much more progressive way of life in comparison to that of the early Latin Americans, the majority of people seem to be “put on edge” by those who cross our the metaphorical lines of our socially defined gender roles. An example, if a transvestite were to walk into your classroom and sit down then, I am guessing that, most if not all of the others in the class would at the very least notice their uncommon appearance. I am certainly not implying that such people who deviate from gender norms would be looked down upon by all, or even most of their peers. I am simply observing that on some levels what was true in the times we are studying holds true today as well. People from virtually all societies and backgrounds are somewhat “caught off guard” by those who cross gender boundaries. Although that makes perfect sense, for if we did not have these norms that they are violating then we would not even have gender. As we learned in the first days of our class, gender is an entirely social structure determined by what we come to expect of specific sexes. When morality comes into play, the reaction to these gender-bending actions can be extremely varied, and in many cases, dire effects can be the result depending of the setting of said actions.
Obviously I wouldn’t expect anyone in our class to be surprised by the fact that the Roman Catholic Church has notoriety for a history of placing strict moral standards on the behavior of its members. However, I hope that I am not alone in thinking that, based on our readings, this practice got completely out of hand. The sheer amount of rules and expectations held by the church was absolutely ludicrous. Naturally, marriage was to be expected when setting basic guidelines for a Catholic person’s sex life. But the extent to which many other facets were monitored and controlled was simply outrageous.
Many basic principles that were held in early Spanish America regarding acceptable circumstances for wedlock are still practiced by an extensive number of modern Catholics (or at least that is what I understand as a non Catholic). Regardless it is reasonable that some Christian dictums of past eras are taught with far less emphasis. For instance, I personally find it absurd to measure sin in a multitude of very basic human actions that are largely uncontrollable. As the article by Larvin pointed out, it was considered a sinful act to enjoy the memory of a past “wet dream,” or even to enjoy it as it happened! The absurdity of finding sin in human thought also extended to a person’s sexual fantasies and desires. Frankly, I have always been under the impression that, as hard as we as human beings may try, we are basically incapable of deciding what comes to our heads as well as what we find pleasure and enjoyment in. Both of these were measured and judged in the eyes of the church. Whats more, the church systematically utilized the confessional as a tool to monitor such minor elements of behavior as a means of gathering intelligence and information.
It seems that the church practically mapped out the moral course of sexuality for all peoples by setting such a vast number of rules to be followed. Masturbation, for instance, was completely out of the question due to the fact that it was an unholy “waste of seed.” Sex within marriage also came with many moral stipulations and limitations. Couples were strictly forbidden to be “adventurous,” a rule which I find ridiculous because there is no real way of morally measuring that. Sodomy was forbidden, as was any kind of sexual behavior that was not a procreative form. Going back to the theme of crimes of thought, it was also considered sinful to think of anyone besides your spouse during intercourse. The metaphorical window of opportunity was pretty small for those intending to meet these moral quotas.
Having completed our assigner readings for the previous week I must admit that I was pleasantly surprised with the amount of interest I took in the subjects covered. Namely the various topics in the first chapter of Women’s Lives in Colonial Quito. It was new and refreshing to study cases proving that a complete societal system of founded on patriarchy was not, and is not, universal throughout the globe. For the majority of my life I had studied under the assumption that this was, in fact, not the case. But I attribute this mainly to the information that I had been exposed to in detail. Hailing mostly from western European nations such as France and England, both of which share similar histories of feminist struggles that developed roughly along the same basic timelines, America has a history of patriarchal patterns in many facets of society. Obviously the first to come to mind is the distribution of domestic authority. I hold no doubt that the majority of Americans do, or at the very least historically have, in fact assume that the male/father/husband role that is filled in the nuclear family is also the source of most decision making and is therefore the authoritative figurehead.
Delving into the assigned readings with this mindset, it is easy to understand how the roles of men and women were in comparison surprising, different, and at least on some levels, more equal than those of many other western European cultures. For instance, upon the death of an elder estate owner land would be divided amongst numerous relatives, including women. This would rarely be the case in many other nations where it would seem mechanical for the eldest male to receive the estate in its entirety. Upon studying them, Spanish societies have struck me as far more progressive in many gender related aspects vis-à-vis other European nations and colonies.
I also took careful note of the text’s early mentioning of the representation of feminism and feminist women. A typical western feminist woman is usually considered a master of her own domain. By this I mean that she is in full control of her own sexuality and makes decisions that affect her on her own, being completely free to do so. Also, she is the result of generations of women gradually overcoming obstacles that have held back her gender. This portrayal ‘ideal modern woman’ seemingly holds potential for a detrimental impact on how we view women of third world nations, as well as their history. Western feminism tends to group women of developing nations into a category of repressed and disempowered individuals who share identical beginnings and struggles with western women. But is this necessarily the case? History as a whole in Spanish societies shows that its women have, basically, always been subject to differing treatment from that of typical western women.
Of the four articles that we read for our classes this previous week, the one that stood out to me the most was “When Love Goes Wrong.” I have always found taken great interest in legally related topics, and this particular article was particularly intriguing because it delved into divorce from a unique perspective which I had been previously unexposed to. The rural town in which the author studied historical cases of divorce was at a very interesting crossroads in time and society. While cultural practices had historically dictated the process of marital bonding and separation, the ascension of the reforming Catholic Church as the source of moral, and often legal, authority was coupled with the time studied and thus greatly impacted the systemizing and outcome of many aforementioned cases.
Before the establishment of the importance of the Catholic Church in rural Spanish communities such as this, public declarations of commitment sufficed for local standards of constituting a marriage. Unsurprisingly, consenting spouses also withheld the basic right to sever their marital ties, without excessive societal, legal, or religious ramifications. Providing that the female could supply sufficient reasoning, a male would often be required to give reasonable, but not drastic, economical support to his former partner. These reasons varied but were rarely beyond the context of what could be expected, such as provision for a child born in or out of wedlock, infidelity, etc…
However, at the junction of Catholicism’s arrival as the undisputed source of bottom-line moral and legal guidelines by which society was to conduct itself, things became at the very least more complicated. Because there was, and still is, no means of marital separation which can be condoned by the Catholic Church, temporary physical separation was the only acceptable alternative that the Church could present to the people of this time. I personally presume that this practice would largely be an ineffective waste of time for all parties involved. Should a consenting couple truly wish to end their ties, then I see fail to see what could prevent them from doing so.
My overall feeling upon reading the article was that the while the Catholic Church was a fundamental pillar in the lives of many from this time/community, it served mostly (in this matter at least) as an imposing complication. I find that the older native practices served a greater amount of justice and was more slanted towards fairness. It took circumstances into greater account in that the judicial system could fairly assess each case presented and determine how to handle it. The stricter laws of the Catholic Church seemed concerned only in what the Bible said in a literal sense. The consolidation of innumerous contributing variables, which ultimately caused unsuccessful marriages, into a single scenario grouping seems foolish to me.
Naturally I assume that, being educated individuals, we were all previously aware of the horrific and morbid nature and practices that the slave trade/industry consisted of. But a week of studies such as our previous one is important so that we never forget or undermine the incalculable damage and nightmarish pain that such a destructive practice creates. However, this week was also important in a revealing sense as well. I had always pictured the slave trade with the assumption that individuality was deterred and discouraged in slaves by slave traders/owners. That cultural practices and vital elements of culture such as religion and language were repressed and subsequently halted altogether. All of this was coupled with the general practice of removing notions of original identity and embedding an entirely new one in the minds of the slaves. But I was unaware of the extent to which the slave industry had thought out this process and how it was reinforced in all manners of forced labor.
Firstly, and sadly, these people were at the time viewed by most in the same light that modern societies view cars. Slaves were simply thought of as products and not as people. The system of slave sales had developed to the point that sellers of slaves sold with the same cautiousness warranted by lemon laws. For instance, if a slave was prone to attempt an escape or was hindered by any kind of handicap the slave trader would disclose this knowledge to potential buyers for their own protection from lawsuits. I find this, as well as other “industry techniques” quite appalling and disgusting. The thought that human beings were forced to endure treatments that made them entirely objective and robbed them of personality or humanity is shocking.
Many of the labors forced upon slaves reinforce my point that individuality and autonomy of slaves were entirely ignored. As an example I point to the practice of forced wet nursing among female slaves. This, to me, ranks among the most horrid tendencies of slave labor for a number of reasons. Firstly it asserts a level of complete and utter dominance over the slave. It not only subjects a woman to extremely tender and emotional practice with an infant, but it confirms the thought entirety of a slave belonged to his or her master. Even their genitals and bodily fluids were viewed as a portion of the owner’s “product.”
I reiterate, this process and practice scares me immensely. If slaveholders truly believed that all facets of their slaves were their own private property then when, if ever, would a line be drawn? Supposing that a slave holder might actually acknowledge that a slave has a soul, which I believe many might have done given their Christian founded justifications for capturing and buying slaves, then would they consider said soul their property as well? If so, how could it have come into their possession? Could these Christians truly contend that a soul was purchased by capital? If not, how could they have even justified their holding of slaves at all?
For my posting this week I will be discussing the concept and theme of war in the culture of Mesoamerica, particularly how the warrior motif related to gender as a whole in the region. I took great interest and was attentive in taking note that in early Mesoamerican societies women were generally viewed as “warriors of the household,” rather than simple keepers of the home or servants of their husband or patriarch. This distinguished war based view of a woman’s role in life was vital and extremely ceremonious. This began upon the birth of a woman, immediately after the completion of the birth her placenta was cut and buried under the hearth. This was representative of where she would be “battling” throughout life. The birth itself was even considered a form of warfare. Should the mother successfully deliver the child, she was considered victorious in her battle against the cosmos. These battles were of an extensive series. For instance, keeping the home tidy and clean was not simply a daily task that a woman was obligated to perform, rather it was viewed as a part of her ongoing battle against chaos and disorder. I also found it interesting that in order to reinforce the notion that women must be prepared to “fight for their home,” they were given toy brooms and household appliances to play with in their infancy. Naturally the warrior motif was by no means exclusive to the females of societies, the men were also taught from birth that their primary roles were to be warriors above all else. Similarly to women, shortly following the birth of a male child their placenta was symbolically buried in the fields. This was done as a representation of their coming battles both of physical labor as well as the battles that they would fight with warring peoples. Their upbringing also showed an unsurprising parallelism with that of women in that in infancy boys were given toy shields and weapons to which they were to become accustomed. I find this intertwined relationship of warfare and life in early Mesoamerica very intriguing. It seems that it was necessitated by multiple reasons. One which seems apparent to me is the desire, or rather need for purpose in life. Perhaps it was easier for people to confidently live their lives, even for societies to function when they were given a direct and straightforward purpose from birth. It is clearly a much simpler system in terms of organizing a civilization and identifying roles for its people. Rather than people going through the gradual process of finding roles or purposes for themselves, they were raised for specific purposes from birth. But I have little doubt that this poorly received by people. From what I can gather this system would, at least on some level, have a foundation of pride. Given the importance that was placed on being successful in battle, it seems logical to assume that masterful performance in all facets of warfare was highly regarded and endlessly pursued by Mesoamerican peoples.
Prior to the arrival of the Spanish Conquistadors, women in Incan society were, at least from my perspective, not necessarily viewed as inferiors to their male counterparts. Rather, they too were recognized as vital sources of economic contribution to their respective households. It is true that men were typically the “representative” of the family, but that does not necessarily presuppose that women were not distinguished benefactors to the sustentation of their families. This, naturally, sheds a new light on the allotment of goods to the family of a newly wed bride from the husband’s family. This was done as a way of compensating for the loss of the woman’s economic input for the family. Women were also important to early Incan society in religious respects as well. Certain women were held with such high religious regard that no Incan males would dare to approach them in any kind of physical sense.
However, all of the customs and traditions for women in Incan society were figuratively thrown out the window upon the arrival of Spaniards. The Spanish, unsurprisingly, held minimal regard for the native ways of the indigenous peoples that they encountered. Thus the Spanish treated the Incan women exactly as they saw fit, which of course was not precisely similar to the treatment that they had been previously accustomed to. I am of the opinion that the ensuing changes brought about by these European conquerors had an entirely negative effect on Incan women.
The Spaniards did not have the same appreciation for the value and contributions of indigenous women as the native men did prior to their conquering. The restructuring of Andean society by the Spanish was absolutely based on an aggressive and authoritative mentality towards the aboriginal peoples. The Spaniards utilized women as a tool of this. In raping the Incan women, or forcing them to become their brides, the Spanish displayed their dominance over the natives, physically and wholly. Also, bearing children or marrying the right women was a faster way for many Spaniards to be considered members of the community and less as invaders or outsiders. The importance of women was quickly measured less by their economic and religious contributions, and more by their value as tools of political advancement.
It is true that many women would willingly or often intentionally wed themselves to a Spaniard. However, when this was the case it was usually for the advancement in lifestyle for the woman and her children. In a sense I find this trend a mere tool of climbing the social ladder. These marriages were, to me, unfortunate because it was often what the women were reduced to in order to preserve themselves and their families. It is deplorable that in order to do this women had to take part in these political marriages. It was, to me, no more than women being forced to “work inside the system.”
I suppose the subject of our recent class discussions that I personally found the most interesting and engaging was the way in which the world determines and classifies gender. I took a particular note at the discussion of the existence of numerous genders, not simply the typical male and female genders that we as a society are largely accustomed to. I myself, up until this past week, was under the general impression the sex of a human being was either male or female and was mostly oblivious to the grey zone of gender that lies between the two. However, this week’s lectures, readings, and classroom discussions were quite revealing to me.
Since our studies began to delve into the details of defining sex and gender I have found myself attempting to resolve why we have become so narrow minded in our perception of the two. It seems to me that people would rather the situation be, as they do in innumerous other matters, be a matter of black and white. That is, simple and easy with no doubts or apprehension of the affair. I am confidant that for most people the perception of what sex is and what it should be comes from their cultures, which are typically steeped in traditions and religion.
Historically speaking, there are hardly any cultures that take the many variables of sex and gender wholly into account, at least not when addressing matters such as family, marriage, and community. In many civilizations across the globe, the ideas of what are expected of people are nearly uncanny. A male is typically expected to mate with a female and the two are to raise offspring together. But as our lectures have proven, this simply cannot be the case for every human being. What about people that are born with the genitalia of both of these sexes? Or in many cases a man or a woman may in fact be homosexual or bisexual and would lack the desire to follow these traditional ways of life. These people are typically labeled social deviants in that they deviate from their cultural or societal norms. Acceptance, or at the very least tolerance, of those who are of atypical gender or sex is, as a result of history, considered progressive.
But why did these cultures develop in such a way? Why are there so few peoples who are not perturbed by sexual variance? My personal reasoning for why this is comes back to what I consider a truism for all things, people fear what they do not understand. An overwhelming majority of people across the globe is in fact either male or female and are heterosexuals. Many of these people simply cannot fathom why anyone would stray from these guidelines of sex that they themselves follow. Since they cannot understand this they must find someway to deal with it, and it is far easier to simply reject these variances and label them as wrong or an error that it is to accept it.
