The Conquest Of Mexico Analysis

Many art historians define the conquest of Mexico as a series of events that are retold through conflicting narratives of the colonizers and the indigenous. Yet, this definition is dismissive towards both the intentions of the colonizers and the experiences of the indigenous people. This definition presents both perspectives as simply opposing views, implying that they are equivalent. These narratives should not be considered equal to each other because the narratives of the colonizers were able to reach a broader audience, while the indigenous voices remained suppressed over time. Another component that is diminished in this definition is the intentions of the colonizers. A more effective method for understanding the conquest is attempting

One side of it depicts the destruction of Tenochtitlan while the other depicts the new Spanish city that was built over it. The side depicting the conquest includes significant historical scenes, such as the arrival of the Spanish and the events that led to the fall of Tenochtitlan (Terraciano, 73). Since it is a piece of furniture, it is meant to remain displayed in private, domestic homes of wealthy, high-ranking families. As Terraciano mentions, the image was created by a Spanish artist who intended to portray an arrogant view of the conquest that glorifies the desecration of the native society (Terraciano, 74). Through their perspective, the new society they established justified their desecration of Tenochtitlan and its inhabitants. The juxtaposition of the chaotic conquest with the image of the city during the time imparts to the viewer that destroying the indigenous society was necessary in order to achieve civilization. During the time that this piece was created, Terraciano states that Spanish artists adopted an elitist mentality because their images extolled the horrific actions of the colonizers during the conquest (Terraciano, 76). By creating celebratory images of the conquest, they intended for a viewer during the time to develop an appreciation for the chaos that occurred during the time. Even though the events they painted are

Despite the language barrier between him and the indigenous people of the land, he insists that they consented to his authority. He expresses his intentions of enslaving them and states, “...such a multitude of peoples, which with very little effort will be converted to our Holy Faith,” (Zamora, 7). He immediately assumes that these people need to adopt his beliefs without making any effort to recognize or understand their own. Another indication of greed in his letter is his emphasis on the abundance of resources and gold that this new land offers. In the letter he states, “...so many lands filled with so many goods very necessary to us in which all Christians will have comfort and profits…” (Zamora, 7). His perspective represents the imperialistic attitude that characterized Europe at the time. This perspective also serves as a framework for analyzing the art created by European artists, such as the biombo. Both this letter and the biombo share the same outlook of suppressing native communities for their own benefit. By contrast, the image of the burning idols demonstrates an indigenous interaction with these colonizers as an attempt to avoid