Prescott Response

Prescott’s History of the Conquest of Mexico is more useful as an example of a certain phase during the development of the research and writing of history than as an actual history of the conquest. This is coming from a purely contemporary standpoint in that a lot of what he has written is opinionated and does not seem to come across as objective by any means. However, I feel that it really cannot be criticized overly much from some of its language regarding the Aztecs because it really is just a product of the 19^th century mindset. Overall, this book is at its most useful as a starting point when beginning to delve into the historiography of Latin America. And because of the literary narrative style it is written in, it is highly accessible for those looking to dip their toes in the water of the historiography of Latin America.

In regards to the silences within this history, I believe Trouillot would be most concerned in regards to the Aztec’s side to the narrative, since Prescott really only provided what was happening from the European point of view. However, like other results of colonizing, I feel this would be difficult to achieve today, let alone during Prescott’s time because of the amount of history that was erased over time as a consequence of this. I feel that even if Prescott had decided to write a full contextual history that was encompassing of both sides of the coin to avoid silences that he would have had issues trying to find sources to represent the Aztec’s as a result of this.