The Pueblo Revolt Of 1680

In this paper, I will be summarizing the following chapters: Chapter 3: "A Legacy of Hate: The Conquest of Mexico’s Northwest”; Chapter 4: “Remember the Alamo: The Colonization of Texas”; and Chapter 5: “Freedom in a Cage: The Colonization of New Mexico. All three chapters are from the book, “Occupied America, A History of Chicanos” by Rodolfo F. Acuna. In chapter three, Acuna explains the causes of the war between Mexico and North America. In chapter four, Acuna explains the colonization of Texas and how Mexicans migrated from Mexico to Texas. In chapter five, Acuna explains the colonization of New Mexico and the economic changes that the people had to go through.

This section highlights that history has created a false narrative depicting the natives as a victimized people, which they were to some extent but only in the fashion that they did not possess the same technology for warfare, immunity of communal diseases transmitted, and they were not anticipating combat. All other factors considered, the natives stood to be a potential threat. In regards to knowledge obtained by Spaniards prior to arrival and knowledge gained from observation, it would be remiss had they not prepared for battle. This argument is not to be misconstrued in approving their actions; I do recognize colonization as an evil for both the reasons employed and its damaging effects, but rather to change the narrative surrounding that of the native people. While they did experience a tragedy, I feel that it is erroneous to write them into history as being incompetent resulting from their

The Great Pueblo revolt of 1680 all started with the droughts of 1660 when the Southwest had severe drought that brought famine and disease. During this, hungry Apaches who couldn’t find food on plains attacked the pueblos. This angered the people on the pueblos, but there new leader Pope’, a mysterious medicine doctor, tried to keep the Indian beliefs around and resisted the Christian religion. The Spaniards hated this, so they captured his older brother. This enraged Pope’ against the Spaniards so he held meetings to tell everybody that the Spaniards must leave. The

Thousands of Americans, who changed citizenship and received large tracts of land from the Mexican government, rebelled in Texas in 1835 for several reasons, including Mexico’s abolition of the locally popular Texas provincial government and its inability to

Throughout the period of colonization, several aspects of genocide can be identified. From the Genocide Convention of 1948, genocide was lawfully defined as any of the following committed with the intent to destroy in whole or part a national ethnical, racial, or religious group as such: killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions to bring about its destruction, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, and/or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. In what is modern day North America, European settlers began colonizing the area in hopes of achieving their goals of expanding Christianity, acquiring wealth for their countries, and/or gaining personal wealth and power. The European settlers had little care about the indigenous people of the areas they were colonizing, leading to the American Indian Wars (Lasting from 1622 - 1924) and the genocide of Native Americans. During this time period, the Native American population decreased dramatically as a result of brutal war, disease, and torture. The modern day New Mexico area in particular was home to Indian Pueblos, who showed an extreme act of resistance against their Spanish conquerors. What later became known as the Pueblo Revolt of 1680 showed how resistance to genocide can be achievable and the impacts it may have.

The cause of the Pueblo Revolt of 1680 has brought up a substantial amount of controversy between historians. Several historians took the preserved historical documents and gathered information from oral history to try and piece together the reason why the Pueblos revolted to begin with. Some historians point to religion as the sole cause, while others say it required the right leader, and still others point to the racial segregation and mixture of the Pueblos and Spanish blood as the cause of the revolt. While each historian has his own viewpoint, it is important to look into the reasons why each come to their own specific conclusions and determine if their argument is a biased or a balanced perspective. The main things to consider are

I came upon one main counterclaim that the Spanish tried to reform their over exploiting ways such as Bartolome de Las Casas. For example in the article "Native Americans, Treatment of (Spain Vs. England) (Issue)" they talked of Las Casas as “he believed the Laws of Burgos were too weak and the Requerimiento was a travesty. He persuaded the government to appoint him Protector of the Indians and for a few years (1514–1517) he sought to employ a milder regime for the Indians.” However these reforms were not very affective across the Spanish colony and have little impact.

Few on earth can claim to possess the true fighting spirit that the native peoples of the American southwest retain. The original people who still call this area between Arizona and Texas home, are the seven major Apachean-speaking tribes: the Chiricahua, Jicarilla, Kiowa Apache, Lipan, Mescalero, Navajo and the Western Apache. It’s believed that they may have migrated to this area as early as 1000 AD. These various peoples, commonly referred to as the Apache Tribes, have faced countless hardships since the arrival of Europeans invaders. Staggeringly, Some of their struggles date back to as early as 16th century. As renowned warriors, the Apache fought in conflicts against the Spanish, Mexico and the U.S., all for the sake of maintaining their

Three examples of how Mexicans in New Mexico, California, and Texas resisted Anglo domination from the documentary, The Latino Americans, is through the court systems in California, land domination in New Mexico, and the battle of the Alamo in Texas. The first example of resistance against Anglo domination is that of Mariano Vallejo, a Mexican elite who owned a 65,000-acre spread of land in California where he made of living through grape vines and livestock. Furthermore, Anglo’s from the East were invading the West due to the gold rush. In addition, once the gold had been wiped out the Anglo’s became squatters on Mexican owned territory where Vallejo took to the judicial system in order to remove the squatters from his land. Unfortunately,

In the late 1500’s Francisco Toledo, Spanish Viceroy of Peru, implemented many reforms centralizing the colonial government. He implemented regulations that grouped the natives into small settlements or villages, much like those seen in Europe, with grid like streets, a central plaza that faced the church, and a jail, etc. The Indians resisted these villages and many even fled. In the face of Indian resistance the Spanish authorities planned on using the Kurakas’ traditional power over the labor and goods of the Indigenous people to benefit the state by gaining control over these societies and using these goods and services of the natives as forms of payment to the state.

The Spanish had been expanding their influence in the new world by conquering the empires and peoples. Soon they would extend northward continuing to claim new land thereby building New Spain. Starting in 1540 the Spanish moved into what would become New Mexico. With the Spanish expansion came soldiers, missionaries, and settlers. These movements would lead to a confrontation between the Pueblo people and the Spaniards known as the “Tiguex War.” The "Tiguex War" was spearheaded by occurred during the winter of 1540-41. Leading the Spaniard troops was Francisco Vásquez de Coronado. The Spanish attacked the 12 tribes of the region leading to a further breakdown of Native and Spanish relations that would continue until 1598. Juan De Onate led a force of over 100 soldiers women children and Priests into the Rio Grande Valley attempting to start a Spanish settlement. The establishment of this new settlement soon leads to another revolt between the Pueblo and the Spaniards. This rebellion is known as the "Tacoma Massacre." Under the command of Juan De Onate, the Spanish soldiers killed and enslaved hundreds of Natives. Onate also ordered the right foot to be removed from the 24

The People had rejected new influences in order to continue their regular cultural lives. The peace was not settled, so Pope drove out the Spanish settlers in the Pueblo Revolt of 1680. Many lives were lost on both sides; fields were destroyed; churches and homes were razed. This was like Moki’s second vision; not sharing the seeds. After peace was restored between the two sides, the People tried to return to their old religious customs, but their old way of life could not be attained.

Restall boldly claims that there exists sufficient evidence to argue this point, given the implications surrounding agency pertaining to the probanza de merito, indigenous syncretism both spiritually and culturally that can be traced to contact, characteristics and methods of governance since independence, and the present state of Latin American affairs. Such a claim, in conjunction with the aforementioned dynamics of disease and native disunity inspire several questions I will analyze throughout the remainder of this discourse. If the conquest was incomplete, what measurable cultural or social factors inhibited, or promoted a fallacious representation of its completion? What was the sate of indigenous empires (respectively the Mexica and Inka), how were indigenous hierarchies stratified, associated, and coordinated, and what antecedent characteristics existed that the Spanish exploited in terms of social bonding and native

Their personal opinions and attitudes towards the natives are probably why the Jesuits were also so successful and influential in their conversion. While British Protestants had a negative assumption that the natives were” physically uncontrollable” and had a “scattered course of life”, the Jesuits positively believed that they

The Agrarian revolt of the 1920 to 1926 in Naranja occurred well before all other regions of Mexico could gather themselves and demand for such. It was a risky endeavor and it only succeeded because of the historic precedent that favor the Tarascans of Naranja. From their pre-conquistador contact history to their post-Diaz situation, the people of Naranja were pushed towards the front of the queue of people with grievances toward the Mexican government. Their experiences also built up their moral and courage to revolt despite the repercussions and the probability of backlash. Then finally, their leaders, especially Primo Tapia, were uniquely prepared to take up the mantle and lead them to victory.