Analyzing Spanish Colonization

Black Legend vs White Legend

The dichotomy of the Spanish colonization of the New World is often encapsulated in the terms Black Legend and White Legend. The former paints the Spaniards as malevolent colonizers, exploiting and decimating the indigenous populations of the Americas, while the latter posits that the Spaniards significantly contributed to the development of the New World, marred only by isolated misdeeds. In their articles, A Modest Proposal for a Moratorium on Grand Generalizations by Lewis Hanke and The Black Legend Revisited by Benjamin Keen, both authors delve into these contrasting narratives. They aim to challenge readers to move beyond simplistic categorizations of Spanish colonization as wholly malevolent or benevolent. Through their analysis, which at times presents as contradictory, Hanke and Keen engage with the complex reality of Spanish actions in the New World, encouraging a nuanced understanding that resists oversimplification.

Benjamin Keen's exploration in his article initially buries the lead, withholding his thesis statement until the conclusion. The brief introductory paragraph fails to set a clear direction for the reader, leaving the article's main purpose ambiguous until later. His delayed articulation of a balanced perspective on Spanish colonization prevents early engagement with his central argument. Throughout his critique, Keen primarily targets the Black Legend, scrutinizing the biases present in supportive literature, notably critiquing Las Casas for an alleged bias against Spaniards. However, Keen does not apply the same scrutiny to figures like Ramon Pidal and Hubert Herring, who may hold biases that favor the Spanish perspective. This selective questioning of sources skews the analysis towards discrediting the Black Legend while overlooking similar biases that might reinforce the White Legend. Furthermore, Keen and others diminish Las Casas's credibility by suggesting his prominence is due to the publication of his works by Spain's rivals, rather than addressing the substance of his criticisms. This approach indicates a potentially uneven handling of historical biases, which could impact the reader's reception of Keen's arguments.

Lewis Hanke's article mirrors Benjamin Keen's in approach, harboring similar issues such as presenting one-sided arguments and selectively addressing biases that support his viewpoint. Unlike Keen, Hanke offers a clearer introduction, laying out his thesis and goals from the outset, which aids in orienting the reader to his argumentative stance. Nonetheless, those not acquainted with Keen's prior work might struggle to grasp the full context of what Hanke seeks to defend, underscoring the interconnected nature of their analyses. When considered together, both articles contribute to a comprehensive examination of the Black Legend and advocate for a more balanced understanding of Spanish colonization.

A significant limitation within both scholars' work is the scant evidence brought forward to substantiate or refute the Black Legend. Reliance on firsthand colonization accounts and the interpretations of contemporary historians, who themselves are influenced by personal biases, risks perpetuating a deadlock in historical discourse. Such an approach often leads readers to revert to their preconceived notions rather than reconsider their views. Moreover, the absence of common Indian narratives in their analysis means the history of these indigenous peoples is largely written by others, specifically the literate colonizers and the elite among the indigenous populations. This omission neglects the experiences of the vast number of Indians subjected to forced labor and death under Spanish rule. The suggestion that the Spaniards' positive contributions to the New World might somehow balance out the atrocities experienced by these communities fails to acknowledge the depth of suffering endured, highlighting a critical gap in the historiographical examination of Spanish colonial practices by Keen and Hanke.

Keen and Hanke both endeavor to redirect the blame for colonial atrocities from Spanish policy makers to individual outliers who ostensibly acted against official directives. Hanke's analysis of King Phillip II's policies exemplifies this approach, suggesting that Phillip was personally against the harsh treatment of Indigenous peoples and aimed to enact policies safeguarding their welfare and spiritual well-being. This portrayal raises critical questions about the genuine intentions behind these policies, especially considering the drastic reduction of Indigenous populations due to Spanish actions and the empire's reliance on native labor for its prosperity in the New World. The discussion of Phillip II's motivations—whether rooted in genuine concern or in a strategic effort to preserve a vital labor force—highlights the complexities of interpreting historical actions and intentions. It underscores the challenge in discerning genuine humanitarian concerns from pragmatic governance strategies aimed at sustaining colonial dominance. This ambiguity serves as a reminder of the intricate dance between morality and practicality in historical narratives, where the interpretation of evidence can significantly influence historians' portrayals of past events and figures.

Keen and Hanke endeavor to present a balanced view of Spanish colonization, acknowledging the cruelty and violence perpetrated by the Spaniards while also highlighting their positive contributions to the New World. Their articles challenge readers to move beyond binary perceptions of the colonization process as either wholly evil or wholly benevolent. Despite recognizing the significant advancements brought by the Spaniards, they confront the grim reality of the suffering endured by Indigenous peoples—enslavement, torture, and execution being commonplace under Spanish rule. The authors point out a crucial gap in historical narrative: the diminished voice of the Indigenous populations who bore the brunt of colonial exploitation and violence. This omission underscores a profound dissonance in the evaluation of Spanish colonization; the contributions, regardless of their value, cannot erase or compensate for the immense human cost paid by the Indigenous communities. Keen and Hanke's work serves as a reminder of the complexities in assessing historical events, urging contemporary audiences to consider the multifaceted impacts of colonization while acknowledging the indelible scars left on Indigenous populations.