1. Does the fact that the supposed "birthplace" of the U.S.A. experienced colonization by the Spanish Jesuits before the English have any implications on what you conceived as the history of America?
2. On page 43-44, Brickhouse mentions that there was a supposed younger brother of Don Luis' who was on the verge of death, possibly the Chief Powhatan himself. On page 39 from John Smith's The General Historie of Virginia, Powhatan mentions that he has experienced the death of all of his people thrice and he has been the only one living from those generations. Does this overlap in information provide any new insight?
3. What do you think some of the motives were behind Don Luis' unfaithful allegiance to the Jesuits? Was it pre - meditated as Garcilaso and Ribadeneyra suggest?
4. What reasons other than the propagation of the Black Legend do you think the Spanish Jesuit mission preceding the Virginia Company mission wasn't emphasized as much?
5. How is Alonso's and Don Luis' transculturalism viewed by the Jesuit historians?
When we think of Jamestown we consider this territory as the first permanent English colony in America. Anna Brickhouse challenges our traditional view of Jamestown by placing emphasis on the fact that "nearly forty years prior to the arrival of the English…the Spanish had established a settlement in the land where Jamestown would be founded" (20). It is bold for one to acknowledge the Spanish Jesuit settlement in Jamestown because the narratives of the birth of our nation typically focuses on the relations between the European settlers and the Native population. It is also imperative for one to know that the Europeans were, in actuality, neither the first to encounter Virginia, nor were they the first to interact with the indigenous people. This awareness, I believe, alters our view of Anglo-Saxon superiority which many assumes to be true because they think that the Europeans were the first to arrive in the United States. Brickhouse suggests that the Spanish conquest of Jamestown, which is depicted throughout the writings of the Spanish Jesuit, thus proves that the Spanish had a "colonial priority" for they arrived before the English (31). Therefore, in response to the first question, I certainly believe that the accounts of the Spanish settlement in Jamestown gives us a critical understanding of a time when Anglo-Saxons were not the predominant race in America.
ReplyDeletePerhaps one of the reasons why the Spanish Jesuit mission is often overlooked is because their conquest was short-lived. Juan Rogel believed that the downfall of the Jesuits' mission was because the Jesuit fathers focused on "making themselves understood rather than that of understanding [the Alqonquian speaking Indians of Ajacan]" (25). Unlike the Jesuit fathers, Don Luis is viewed as a paradigm of one who is able to maintain cross-cultural identities. Don Luis is said to have the ability to "read and write in Spanish" and at the same time, he is also known for retaining his indigenous values. For this reason, Jesuit historians might be ashamed to acknowledge the narrative of Don Luis for his murder of the Jesuit fathers highlights their overall inability to convert the indigenous population in America.
Sort of in response to question 5, more so in response to Sara's expansion of question 5 in class: The presence of trans-nationalism can pose some difficulties for the historian. Given the fact that historians are not impervious to nationalistic bias, when faced with historical situations in which cultural sides are not so crudely delineated or established, historians can sometimes push the inconvenient facts, the ones that challenge the established national story or the desired national story, to the periphery. Don Luis' and Alonso's respective straddling of the divide between Spanish and Powhatan makes telling their story and the story of pre-Virgina Company Jamestown far more complicated and complex; and, considering (as stated before) the nationalistic bias that can sometimes color the historians account, simplifying the story, reducing it to its more palatable and beneficial constituents is sometimes(not surprisingly)the road of choice.
ReplyDeleteI think question 5 is really significant but the narrative of Don Luis and Alonso de Olmo is so complex that its difficult for me to wrap my head around. The Jesuit historians utilize them as historical figures to both victimize themselves/paint themselves as martyrs who were massacres; however, in doing so, also portray the complication in missions and colonialism in which moments of resistance on the part of indigenous peoples or "race traitor" colonists deceive the colonial military in order to save native tribes. I think that Leselie is right in saying that the Jesuits describes of the divide between he Spanish and Powhatan complicated the traditional story telling of "Hemispheric Jamestown".
ReplyDeleteFirst off, the Jesuits had already resented Don Luis for betraying his own people and leading the massacre against the Jesuits. The question to ask, however, was if Luis was just pretending to act Christian-like in order to get closer to the ones he was plotting against. Being that Alonso de Olmos was the only remaining survivor of that mass slaughter of the Spanish, Jesuit historians were somewhat thrilled to find out that they had, to some extent, an alliance that was present during the time of that event. They probably felt it would make their historical writings more slanted to the views and ideas they believed occurred or the way they wanted it to be told. That was, until, they realized that Alonso had also deceived his people and became accustomed to the Native lifestyle. The Jesuits felt Alonso could no longer be trusted because he didn’t share the same values as that of a Spanish Jesuit. He was comfortable living as one of the “traders” and Alonso was no longer a trusted source of information. It was a battle of which culture one preferred and it seemed as if Alonso chose the side they did not agree with.
ReplyDeleteI think that is how history is mainly written. Historical researchers tend to find someone to describe the story in a way that most suits them. That is why when viewing texts on historic occurrences, one must choose what best to accept as true and be aware of the stance of the writer.
3)
ReplyDeleteI believe that Don Luiz's main motive behind his unfaithful allegiance to the Jesuits, is that he were never truly faithful towards them in the first place. According to the text, it is unknown how Don Luiz came about the company of the Jesuits in the first place, and whether or not he'd been captured or if he'd gone to them willingly. However, judging by the events of the narrative I would say that it is safe to assume that another motive that Don Luiz had for betraying the Jesuits, is one that further reinforces his first motive. I believe that Don Luiz may have somehow been taken by the Jesuits or the other Spaniards who accompanied them. If Don Luiz had willingly gone with the foreign missionaries in the first place, what reason would he have had to go back? Even if there were some unknown reason for his return, why did he feign ignorance of the location of his tribe the first time around when in company of soldiers who undoubtedly would have destroyed or conquered his tribesmen? If he had been unable to locate his tribe the second time around when traveling with the Jesuits, then he could be given the benefit of doubt. However, not only did he find the correct location, he abandoned them knowing he was the only link they had to the natives, and upon returning, aided in their slaughter.