Prescott's surprising professionalism

I probably should start this blog entry with a confession: this book, the movie Road to El Dorado (really bad...definitely don’t recommend it), and vague memories of visiting Chichen Itza with my family, comprise the entirety of my knowledge of the conquest of Mexico. All that to say, you should take what I have to say with a grain of salt.

I was pleasantly surprised by Prescott’s book. I was expecting the usual type of white, racist commentary on “the natives” that I read as primary source documents in AP US History in high school.  Prescott’s robust use of primary sources, extensive footnoting, and openness about his intentions as a writer and his attempts not to be biased seem to point toward the judgment that the book is at least a useful introduction to the Spanish conquest of Mexico.  I thought the foreword to the book, which states that Prescott’s was a time of “dabbling” in history was a little harsher than merited. He seems to do a professional job, especially given the information (including difficulty traveling to Mexico, the need to import archives) and physical (the man was blind during a time without assistive technology or type) challenges of his time.

That said, and for the purposes of this class, I think the book is best viewed as an example of history writing during Prescott’s time.  His goal is to tell a story with the ends of helping the reader (presumably white, American contemporaries) “understand” the motives and perspectives of the characters. To do this, he crafts a narrative that in many ways reminds me of epic poetry, starting with a scenic description, expository on the character of the heroes, and descriptions of battle, in which the main characters are Cortes and Montezuma. He provides moral assessments on topics ranging from slavery (pp. 36), to the “character” and religion of the Aztecs, (pp. 119, 143), to the motives of the Europeans (196, 210).

I think Trouillot would cite the silences created by sources as his primary interest in this book. Prescott attempts, in a way that I think is unique for his time, to give a voice to the Aztecs without completely demonizing or glorifying the Spaniards. However, the absence of primary sources on the Aztecs—especially those that do not come from Europeans—creates an overwhelming silence.  Prescott cannot give as detailed a treatment to Montezuma’s character, motives, and activities as he can to Cortes’ because he doesn’t have the sources.  And the absense of those sources tends to make this—as much as Prescott attempts not to be biased—a story that is “about” Cortes and his conquest of Mexico.