Before we begin, a bit of context:
The following paper, written for a Latin Philosophy class (PHIL 114), takes a look at the Peruvian author Felipe Guáman Poma de Ayala. Born in 1535 into a family of Incan nobles, Guáman experienced life under the colonial rule of Spain. Having seen the way his people fared under the thumb of the Spanish, he wrote to the king of Spain a chronicle detailing the conquest and injustice in Peru. Along with his account of Peruvian history was his judgment of the Spaniards and his own suggestions for a better system of colonialism, one that would effectively bring the Inca back into power. This message to the Spanish king was finished around 1615 and titled The First New Chronicle and Good Government.
For this particular assignment, I was required to submit a prospectus prior to writing my paper in order to establish my thesis and what methods I would use to build it. Included in the following excerpt is my goal:
In the paper I will write, I will analyze Guámans methods and the techniques he uses to formulate his argument regarding the common Spaniard’s lack of authority in Peru. In the process, I will point out the flaws and prejudices in his reasoning before continuing on the topic of how Guáman’s viewpoint cannot truly support the people, his or otherwise.
Now, for the paper itself…
The Skill of Disguise within Expression
When articulating an argument, manipulation and mastery of language is crucial. No one knows this concept better than Felipe Guáman Poma de Ayala, whose “The First New Chronicle and Good Government” demonstrates his exemplary skill in this regard. By accounting for the values of his audience, he builds a narrative simultaneously anchored in truth and tailored to the desires of the king of Spain himself. This is the basis and strength of his strategy.
To undermine the authority of the Spaniards in Peru, he draws upon the very principles the Spanish hold dear and references Christianity often to describe the many groups living in the Andes. For his own people, he states that “though they were infidels, they followed the commandments of God and the good works of mercy (274)” prior to the Spaniards’ arrival, depicting his people—and by extension, himself—as inherently virtuous and sensible in nature. In addition to this, he makes the point that the people of the Andes were far more Christian before the Spanish brought their corruption with them, tainting those who would otherwise remain pure. Thus, he emphasizes that the indigenous Andean people are more than capable of upholding and exemplifying Spanish principles without the need for the Spaniards themselves, which provides support for his later proposal for better government.
In stark contrast, he wields the Europeans’ own Christianity as a weapon against the resident Spaniards, citing each of their transgressions—stealing, taking advantage of young girls, and much more—in great detail. Guáman’s juxtaposition of the Spaniards’ sinful acts and the virtues they were supposed to embody paints the powerful image of a land governed by hypocrites, imagery that severely damages the reputation of the Spanish and calls into question the capability of the king’s ruling subjects. How, after all, can such people be trusted when they “caused His Majesty’s treasury to lose the millions that the city would have given…simply because Don Franciso Toledo wanted to make himself into a lord and king (154)”? In the perspective of Guáman’s Christian analysis, by giving into pride, they commit grievous sin. Can such treacherous sinners, who not only have insulted the king directly for their insolence but also originated the corruption of indigenous people in the same breath, truly be considered competent? When looked at in this light, it’s almost certain the Spaniards stationed in Peru are too dangerous to come anywhere near a position of authority. Thus, Guáman succeeds brilliantly in his weaponization of Christianity and furthers his argument in a way that is difficult to oppose without challenging the king of Spain or the Christian principles themselves.
However, it is this very form of aggressive argumentation that reveals Guáman’s biases and leaves cracks in his otherwise sound strategy. For example, his condemnation of the Spanish, though highly effective in the manipulation of Christianity to his advantage, is too much at times. It is harsh to the point of sounding hateful, which, whether it be a hidden grudge against Spain for ruining his homeland or not, is certainly not an impression one would wish to give the Spanish king. In his retelling of the Spanish conquest of the Andes, it is also clear through the inclusion of his family members’ achievements that his ulterior motive is bringing his own name to the king’s attention. Most importantly, though, is the language he uses to describe the people he considers neither his own nor Spain’s. He only ever mentions black people in the context of being slaves, going so far as to claim they have “received God’s curse (159)”, and disparaging the Jewish people as well. He places great emphasis on the “purity” of marriage between people of the same races, spending much time on how people should not marry outside of their statuses—status and race being intertwined in this definition—and that they should be punished for doing so. This concept of racial purity is evident throughout Guáman’s work, manifesting briefly when he laments the inability of indigenous peoples to “multiply” in Part 6 and becoming even more obvious when he speaks of mestizo children. Overall, he seems to target and belittle mestizos in particular, referring to them both directly and indirectly in negative lights. Instead of viewing them as members of his people, he paints them merely as the products of priest misconduct and sin, referring to them as “little mestizos (274)” and noting their large numbers like one would pests. Not once does he ever seem to truly see them as people, and he makes absolutely no attempt to accept them into his society despite their indigenous blood and, by extension, connection to a shared culture. His strict and purity-focused view on marriage is a form of mestizo suppression, making it clear he sees them as burdens and outsiders to his people.
This exclusion of groups that also suffer under Spanish rule is precisely what makes Guáman’s calls for government reform impossible to achieve. Like the Spaniards he both condemns and seeks approval from, Guáman ultimately upholds the system of colonialism. He uses it to his advantage, considering his own people and no one else. The empowerment of the indigenous Andean people is, of course, a noble endeavor and one that would in and of itself be a fight against colonial suppression of native peoples, but it is not a complete one. By elevating his own people to positions of power while buying into the racism of the colonial period, he does nothing to truly change anything aside from replacing the Spaniards as the new colonizer. In what way would such a new system be fair if the enslaved remained enslaved, or if the lowly remained lowly, all on the basis of their skin color or identity? He cannot even accept the people closest to his own. Guáman may spin tales cleverly enough to play the colonial system, but so long as he joins the colonizer in drowning his fellow downtrodden peoples, there cannot be unity in any system he campaigns for. There cannot be change.
Some thoughts after this was all said and done:
While I’m satisfied with the way the paper fulfilled its purpose (which it did well! My philosophy professor’s comments were very positive), there were some constraints that prevented me from making this as good as I hoped it would be. First of all, there was a strict limit of 1000 words and a requirement for a narrow focus of topic. Because of this, I could not come up with a topic that involved more than one reference and thus could not make any comparisons to other works or authors of Guáman’s time.
Additionally, the conclusion of my paper was a bit difficult to write and comes off as a bit repetitive. This is due mostly to the way that the full prospectus I submitted prior, which already stated my thesis, made expressing my thesis again a bit awkward. I also happened to be rather tired and working against some tough time restraints since this was supposed to be peer reviewed, edited, and sent back for one more look over before final submission.
It’s also simply difficult in general to find ways to begin and end things. It’s a weakness I hope to improve on with more time.
Works Cited:
Ayala Felipe Guamán Poma de, et al. The First New Chronicle and Good Government Abridged. Hackett, 2006.
