The history of Mexico according to Prescott……
Well I am just going to say it up front and get it out of my system. What is wrong with 19th century historians? These men were scholars they should have known better but no they are the raciest people. And I’m not singling out the historians, anthropology was just as bad and the damage they did to other cultures we are still trying to recover from it all. The tone Prescott takes concerning native populations especially North American tribes is dripping with distain and arrogance and it drives me nuts. If you are a scholar you should be trying to understand other cultures not perpetuate ideas of superiority that were developed when the conquest began. So I’ve said my peace and we can move on.
William Prescott’s History of the Conquest of Mexico is an extremely detailed account of the Spanish influence in Mexico. This work is more in the vein of Dias’ account as multiple primary sources were available to piece together the events which occurred. However, the problem with basing your work on primary documents means you get the original Spanish propaganda as well. All throughout the book the tone is almost identical to the accounts of the conquistadors, praising the Spanish and bring civilization to the natives in the name of God. The myths of the Spanish are self perpetuated throughout Prescott’s work casing the reader to doubt the validity of the truth of the facts.
Another aspect of the book I found perplexing was how Prescott compared things. When the Spanish first beheld the sites in Mexico it became necessary to describe to the crown what they were seeing. Buy how do you do so? Through comparison. However, Prescott takes it to another level. Due to the complexity of the civilization Prescott could not simply designate them as savages so in turn he turns to comparing them to ancient civilizations for a majority of the time. Even doing to he is placing their civilization as far away temporally as possible to his own culture.
Despite its many faults Prescott’s work is a prime example of the 19th century attitude towards history. As first hand research was scarce primary document use was the norm. Which in turn perpetuated the superiority complex of European scholars. As a product of this we get History of the Conquest of Mexico which is easier to read than Cortes’ account as it is meant to be scholarly work. I often found it hard to follow Cortes’ account as it wasn’t meant for a wide audience. Prescott’s work attempts to synthesize the history in a more organized manner. This was at least one aspect I liked about the book. And one does have to keep in mind the time in which it was written. So in truth the book serves two purposes. First it examines the actual history of the conquest and secondly it provided an almost anthropological look at the mentality of 19th century scholarly work and how they viewed other cultures in relation to themselves.
