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.