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.