I, The Worst of All

This week in class, we have been watching, “I, The Worst of All”, a story I find so intriguing, yet heartbreaking. It is about Sister Juana Ines de la Cruz, a woman who was forced to chose between a life free from legal and Church oppression, yet void of the very things that mean the most to her, tools of learning, or a life that is constantly scrutinized by Church officials, yet having access to a world of scientific and literary resources. She chose the latter because it was the only way she would be able to live mostly independently and have access to books, scientific tools, and be free to write beautiful poetry, although it came at a price. It was heartbreaking to see her so lonely. Her close friends, the Viceroy and Vicereine left for Spain and her own confessor left her, leaving her extremely vulnerable against the strong male oppressors of the Catholic Church. They felt as if she was taking advantage of all the resources the Church made available to her, but she did not seem thankful to God for it. Another huge conflict between Juana and her love for writing and learning was that women were not supposed to learn things for themselves, but were told what to believe and do. She was seen as dangerous and suspicious and could not be trusted. I am interested to see the end of this movie. Surely the Church cannot kick her out of the convent and let her be free in society; she would certainly be more “dangerous” out there without the oversight of the church.

Women and The Church

This week’s class topic was about women and the Church in Colonial Latin America. We discussed prominent women figures to the Catholic Church, including the Virgin of Guadalupe, or the most important Mary in Latin America, and Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz, the most famous nun in Latin America. We also discussed the organization of the Catholic Church and it’s use as a financial institution. Another interesting topic was the differences between the white veil nuns and black veil nuns. I did not realize that even the nuns were subject to social and economic hierarchy. The black veil nuns did not take a vow of poverty and came from upper class families and spent most of their time studying and concentrating more on spiritual matters and less on physical. The white veil nuns were more like how we think of nuns today. They took a vow of poverty and bore the brunt of the labor. We also discussed the reasons why most females (especially those from prominent families) chose to become nuns instead of marrying and raising a family. The numbers of women who professed to convents were surprising; 77% of female from prominent families joined convents, while only 14% married. The reasons why these women chose this route were understandable. One major factor was education. The only way women could receive an education was through the Church. Another reason why a woman may choose this life was because of family and economic strategy. A daughter that chose to become a nun required a smaller dowry up front as opposed to one that got married. Lastly, a woman may rather live in autonomy without a man governing over her, so that she can devote her concentrations on God. It is also interesting, though not surprising, that women who did not join convents, beatas, were usually held suspect as immoral women.

These discussions about how women were involved in, and viewed by the Church were important, because during Colonial times in Latin America, the Church was mostly the center of the peoples’ lives, whether they liked it or not.

Sexual Witchcraft

This week, our studies focused on witchcraft in colonial Mexico after the Inquisition. Ruth Behar’s article about how women used sexual witchcraft describes the ways in which women used witchcraft and why they felt they needed to use it against others. She claims that the main reason why women used witchcraft was to reverse their subordination to men and gain some degree of control over their husbands or lovers. The belief of magical power these women held empowered them to question and challenge the structures of inequality. Behar notes that historians often overlook the significance of witchcraft in colonial Mexico. However, these studies reveal important insight into the lives of women and the struggles they went through that convinced them of the need for a magical solution that would punish their oppressor(s), often without them knowing.

One of the main ways women administered witchcraft to their husbands was by making them eat their witchcraft. This was considered to be the most effective and direct way to administer the spell. One of the interesting points Behar makes about this method of administering witchcraft was that it was a way for women to “penetrate” men, so to speak, by physically putting a spell into the man’s body, in a way of reversing presumed gender notions. Also, many men were careful not to mistreat their wives out of fear that they would “pollute” them by serving them food while they were menstruating or using witchcraft against them.

Spanish religious elite viewed witchcraft as a sign of ignorance, curable with instruction and punishment. Many women, after performing an act against their husbands would feel bad and confess to the priest.

Witchcraft did serve in breaking down class barriers between women. Midwives and curandenas (folkhealers) were the main women that provided women from all classes with the herbs and ingredients necessary for performing a spell. It seemed that there were women everywhere who were lurking about, waiting to hear a woman complaining about their husband or lover, ready to offer her a remedy to her problems.

Men were not these women’s only victims. Women used witchcraft against other women and slaves used it on their masters to “soften” them. These studies of witchcraft reveal a lot about the Spanish society, including their fears of women assuming power over men by means of whichcraft.

Homosexuality Cases in Colonial Latin America

This week we discussed cases of people caught practicing homosexuality. Many of these cases are intriguing, though exhausted with details. Many of the details discussed and examined in these cases included who was on top and bottom during sex, who ejaculated first into whom, their actions in public, specifically whether or not they quarreled with one another, and many other things to try and prove a couple suspected of practicing homosexuality guilty.

It is important to note that the main force used to implicate and charge these unlawful acts was the reliance on alcalde del barrio, a network of neighborhood surveillance “copycats”, who accused these people of committing these nefarious sins. So, in effect, snitching neighbors became the key force of enforcing sexual rule in the society. This is interesting, because these cases were almost always based on 100% circumstantial evidence of how the couple acted in public. What made it even harder for the accused was that there was an assumption of guilt by the court, instead of today, where the accused are always assumed innocent until proven guilty. So, essentially, if a scorned acquaintance wanted to convict someone of committing the sin of sodomy, and the accused did not have an acceptable excuse, they were guilty.

Also, in many cases, the accused were tortured until a confession was made. I support capital punishment as a deterrent to others and a penalty to one who has committed heinous crimes; I do not think anyone would advocate severe torture as means to obtain a confession. Any amount of logic would conclude that most confessions were proclaimed to stop the pain of being raised up by the hands while tied behind the back and other painful methods. For instance, Zeb Tortorici writes in his article of Sodomitical Subcultures about a case in which a baker named Francisco Capiche was accused of sodomy, which he flatly denied. However, when he was interrogated and instruments of torture were introduced, he admitted to the crime.

These two subjects are two examples of how I believe that these accused couples were wrongfully tried in court. Even though they very well may have been practicing these unlawful acts, the way they were tried and convicted just did not seem fair in my eyes.

Sex in Colonial Mexico

This week in class, we discussed sexual sins and the Catholic Church’s response to them. The Church had strict guidelines regarding the most intimate details of married couples’ sex lives. The standard acceptable template laid out three overlying rules for sex. First, sex must be consensual. We learned about this aspect in last week’s class and by reading about it in Patricia Seed’s book. Marriage must be between two consenting adults, who married on their own free will, and not of their parents’. The second was that sex should only happen with the sole purpose being to procreate. The third rule was that sex should be unadventurous. If the sex was enjoyable and not purposeful and to the point, the couple had committed a sexual sin in the eyes of God (i.e. the Church). This rule is hard to understand viewing it in today’s eyes where just the opposite is the case. It seems like today, the number one reason/goal of sex is for enjoyment and the second, or “side effect” of sex is procreative. Of course these rules seem unrealistic and I wonder just how many couples obeyed them in the intimacy and privacy of their homes.

In our discussion groups, we discussed the court cases brought before the Church involving sexual sins. My group discussed the deflowering of Maria by Juan. In our eyes, this was just one example of how easily women claimed sex as a reason to sue a man over “lost virginity” and honor. Although it did not work out quite as Maria and her family had wished.

This week’s lecture and discussion topics were probably the most interesting materials so far this semester. It is so interesting to see the strict values the church hold the people to at the time and the court cases that result with those preconceived values.

Marriage, Love, and Free Will in Colonial Mexico

This week’s reading was of Patricia Seed’s book, To Love, Honor, and Obey in Colonial America. In it, she discusses the changing ideals of colonial Latin America regarding love honor, and obedience, focusing on the desired ideals of the Spanish Catholic Church.

Seed predominantly writes about how the Catholic Church protected the freedom of marriage choice by allowing couples to be married, in spite of the wishes of the community or the couple’s family and protected them from rebuffs of their parents. These views were sort of revolutionary at the time, with the Spanish Catholic Church and the Church of England being the only groups that held those views of the major Western European religions. Although they commanded that children obey their parents, they held that God removed children from subjection to their parents when it came to the choice of marriage. Throughout her book, Seed notes the changes in parental authority throughout the 16^th, 17^th, and 18^th centuries. Later, in the 18^th century, as the balance of power shifted from the Church and more toward crown authority, marriages were more easily stopped by families opposed to their children’s marriages. Wealthy families especially held the upper hand, as they were able to use the royal courts to prevent marriages that they viewed as socially undesirable, which was, during the 16^th and 17^th centuries, an invalid reason. These changes were, in part, due to the shift in attitudes towards the importance of money and economic success. That is why, in the 18^th century threats of inheritance was viewed as a legitimate excuse to stop a marriage between two people.

Seed also discusses the meaning of love to these colonial Latin Americans. Their view of love meant nothing of what it does today. In the reasons why couples desired to wed, love, or at least our meaning of it, was not viewed upon as good. If a couple reasoned that they were in love and wanted to be married, they were looked at as foolish and immature individuals and believed that they were blinded by passion and could not think rationally. Instead of “amor” they would use “te gusta” to convey that they liked each other and that they were two compatible people who wished to marry. These views were very different to what I am used to in today’s culture, where just the opposite would be true. If a couple just said they “liked” each other and were “compatible” one would question their love for one another and a potential marriage. While, if a couple outwardly showed and confessed love to one another, however sickening it may look, we would believe that the couple genuinely loved each other.

This book really opened my eyes to the practices and beliefs of the colonial culture and their views on love. To my surprise, they were not as different in their beliefs on marriage and free will as our culture today.

Gender Over Race?

In class on Thursday, my group discussed the introduction and first chapter of Kimberly Gauderman’s book, Women’s Lives in Colonial Quito. Right away she mentions that racial status was more important than gender or marital status in the lives of these people. She claims that people defined themselves on the basis of Indians and non-Indians more so than on gender. I found this to be a bold, sweeping statement, and I am not quite sure whether or not I believe her.

Reading Gauderman’s perspective, it seems as if women had fewer rights in the colonial period over time, specifically involving controlling their own property and other financial decisions. These women were looked at as minors, and consequently, being controlled sexually, financially, and in their labor powers. One speculation as to why women’s rights seemed to decrease from the 17th to the 18th century may involve the example Queen Isabella set during the rule of her and her husband, Ferdinand, in which she was the dominant ruler of the two in that she acquired more lands and governing powers. Gauderman explains this reasoning when she wrote, “ the growing power of the father in the family during the latter part of the colonial period, in fact, coincides with changes in the structure of crown authority.” (p. 27)

Further emphasizing her point that women obtained lesser power during the 18th century in Latin America, she describes one of the roles of women as tokens exchanged among men to create a sort of bond or agreement. Some societies gave women, specifically their own daughters, to signal alliances and hope of future favors or gifts. She even boldly declares that women underwent a “civil death” when they were given to men as tokens. I think this is a little extreme and sort of an exaggeration because in previous centuries, fathers that gave their daughters to a husband usually expected some sort of dowry. This was nothing new. Another sweeping claim Gauderman makes is that, once women married, they disappeared from society and the husbands became their wife’s voice in legal processes and all public life.

Gauderman goes on to discuss the political sphere and the power of the king. From what I read, it seems as if the king had no power over many issues, especially taxes. It is somewhat amusing to read that if the people did not want to pay the taxes the king issued, they would raise a revolt and refuse to pay. This shows how much power the people had in relation to the king.

Back to Gauderman’s introductory statement that racial status was more important than gender or marital status in the lives of these Latin America peoples. The evidence she provides does not necessarily back up this statement. Placing the title of women undergoing a “civil death” upon marriage seems like it would weigh pretty heavy regarding the importance of marital status over racial status. Likewise, her claims of the derogatory ways women’s importance was lessened, it seemed as if she placed the importance of gender over racial status in the lives of women. From my initial reaction of the opinions of Gauderman, and only reading a part of her writings, I would believe that she definitely places gender over racial status, as well as marital status as the most important factor affecting the lives of colonial Latin Americans.

Sexuality in Early Spain

In class this week, the focus was gender relations in Spain. Looking previously into Spaniard conquests in Latin America and the changes they brought with them, one would assume that women had little rights in Spain, as they did in their newly conquest territories. However, I was surprised to read that the women had many legal rights (some which they took advantage of). This was probably because of the model of Ferdinand and Isabella, where Isabella seemed to be the “head of the household” because she kept her land separate and had much more of it than her husband.

Focusing on the article by Edward Behrend-Martinez titled, "Manhood and the Neutered Body in Early Modern Spain", it was interesting to read about how “manhood” was defined in early Spain. I was surprised to read how much pressure was on men to prove their masculinity, physically and in conduct. The pressure to have the ability to perform sexually and be potent male was extremely heavy because it seemed to be the whole community’s duty to find out about a man’s private life and broadcast it to the whole community. They felt it necessary to “warn the public” of a male’s incomplete anatomy or lack of ability to perform in reproduction, so that he would not fool an unsuspecting woman into marrying “imperfect man”. I did not realize how private our society is until I read how transparently public this society was involving the intimate details of a man’s and couple’s private life. This public openness was used by the Catholic Church as a way to “control the public sphere to participate in the economy of sexual reputation”, and to curtail men from deceitfully getting into relationships with women who assumed their competence.

It was also interesting to read about the case of Juan, who was born a hermaphrodite and considered an outcast in the community. S/he was considered a monster and an outcast. When Juan showed interest in living as a male, it worried family members, who viewed it as unnatural. Even though it seemed Juan chose his own sexuality, as a man, the court ordered Juan to live as a female and required Juan to remain celibate. I felt sorry for Juan that the court chose his sexuality instead of accepting the way Juan wanted to live, whether it be male female, or as both.

Reading from the Spaniards’ point of view was good because it gave me the whole picture about the influences early Latin America had and the reasons as to why and how they ruled when they came to Latin America.

Justifying Slavery

This week’s readings and discussion was centered around the Latin American slave economy, in particular, Kris Lane’s article titled, “Captivity and Redemption: Aspects of Slave Life in Early Colonial Quito and Popayan”. It was interesting comparing slavery in Latin America to slavery in North America, specifically the South, and finding how similar the two experiences were in two very different places. Also, the video shown in class depicting the transportation of slaves across the Atlantic was hard to watch. It is sickening to realize that human beings underwent that much torture and humiliation. I wondered if those white slave traders had consciences. Then, I read about the reasons in which they justify these enslavements in order to squash any amount of guilt they may possibly encounter. The slave traders and buyers (owners), justify slavery by claiming that they are doing a service to them by saving them from the barbarity and tyranny of Africa where they lived as Christ less savages who should feel it a privilege to be captured and be able to live in a world with order and religion. However, when you look at the way they are treated from capture until their deaths, there is anything but order and Christianity.

These female slaves were clearly viewed as humans because they were given the important jobs of nursing their master’s children, proving that they realized that these Africans shared the same physical bodies. It is so contradicting to me as to how they were viewed as sub-human-savages who were beaten or killed for misbehaving and used for the sole purpose of labor and reproduction for profit, yet was perfectly fine to feed their master’s children from their own “African” milk.
It is difficult to fathom how these slave traders and owners cold-heartedly viewed and treated their African slaves, and makes me wonder if they had any guilt for their treatment. Then, viewing the ways they justified slavery shows me that they did have some (even if very little) guilt because of the ways they justified their acts by claiming to be their saviors from a cruel and savage Africa.

Primary Account of Mesoamerican Births

This week’s post will be about the readings on Nahuatl Speeches and Dialogues, more specifically, the excerpts from the midwife’s speeches from the Florentine Codex, Book VI. This speech discusses the rituals involved with the birth of a child and the differences in preparation of male and female babies. Mesoamericans viewed women’s “duties” as a sort of war making. Sweeping the floor was making war with chaos, for example, in addition to making war in giving birth. This act was something to be proud of and was not viewed upon lightly, for women who had survived labor were highly regarded as bravely birthing a male physical warrior or a female warrior for the home. When the baby appears, the midwife shouted war cries, “which meant the woman had fought a good battle, had become a brave warrior, had taken a captive, had captured a baby”.

Much like everyday life to these Mesoamericans, births are also very much paralleled by gender. When a male child was born, his umbilical cord was buried under the battle field, signifying the life he will live ruled by battle to protect his land. Conversely, a female child’s umbilical cord was buried under the hearth, signifying that the female was not to go anywhere outside the home, for her sole duty was maintaining the household.

It is interesting that the midwife stresses more to the female that her work will be hard and that she will fatigue and work hard to provide for the household, than to the male who will fight on the battlefield. This shows how much importance is placed on the women’s work and how important their “battles” are.

By today’s standards, this “putting women in their place” concept of women’s purpose to take care of the house would be seen as grotesquely sexist and demoralizing, yet in the Mesoamerican’s world, this system worked for them and each were seen as equally important. Saying that women need to be in the kitchen is just as sexist as protesting that they need to be out working with men. However, it is refreshing to read firsthand accounts about these people and how they are constantly working together for the betterment of their society.

Impact of the Spanish Invasion on Andean Women

This week in class we discussed how important gender parallelism was in the culture of the Andeans. Everything was divided into distinct, completely separate male and female spheres. Men and women were seen as completely opposite as represented by the separate spheres that each sex represented such as sun and moon, lightning and rain, morning and evening, and sky and earth. These views worked for these people and constituted a nice flow for the workings of everyday life.

Lines of descent were according to sex. Daughters were linked primarily to their mothers and sons to their fathers, forming matrilines and patrilines. Likewise, surnames were passed on from one gender parent to the same gender child. There were also parallel lines of inheritance where the mother passed down her lands to her daughter upon marriage and death. These lands received by women, remained the woman’s own property upon marriage. Effective labor units involved both the male and female working together on different tasks within the home and community. There were distinct line of these male and female tasks that were essential for the maintenance and reproduction of the household, society, and the empire itself.

However, everything changed when the Spanish invaded the Andes. The Spaniards strove to immediately uproot everything of the Andean society for the sole purpose of their own wealth and prestige. According to Spanish law, women were legally minors. In order for women to obtain goods or property, they had to obtain permission from their male “tutors”, or husbands, and could not dispose of it on their own. On the other hand, land received by women from their mothers or anyone could be sold by their husbands without their permission. If that wasn’t demeaning enough, women were sometimes locked up by colonial administrators and forced to weave and spin for their own profit. They were essentially used as slaves not only for economic gain but for sexual use also. While women were seen essentially as equals sexually in the pre-Spanish invasion and permitted to engage in sexually activity, as long as both parties were willing, they were now seen as sex-slaves and concubines to the Spanish conquistadors. Many of the men that did not abandon their families because of the harsh conditions of the militia service took advantage of this new society of male dominance. They now had a sense of ownership of their female relatives, essentially pawning them to the intrusive, destructive Spaniards.

It is really sad to see the decent that women underwent during the invasion of the Spaniards. Everything was working cohesively for them and their families until the Spanish turned everything upside-down. Women equality is supposed to constantly move forward and it is disheartening to see it take a huge step back for the furtherance of Spain and its greedy conquistadors.