Response to Prescott

“We must admire Prescott as an initiator, a supremely able person with narrative synthesis, a person of large vision and historiographical sensitivities. But in many ways he belongs to his time…” (pg. xxv).

The History of the Conquest of Mexico can be understood in two different ways. If you are reading the book, from the viewpoint of when it was written, then this book would be considered an actual history of the conquest. Prescott is very elegant and descriptive in his writing making it quite enjoyable for the reader. Because his book reads like a narrative, the content is very informative and provides insight to Latin American history for which I can say I know little of.

However, if you were to read this book from the viewpoint of 2015 then this book represents the history of writing in the 19^th century. Even though Prescott wrote eloquently, the tone of voice and the connotation on certain words would make the reader draw conclusions that Prescott did not like the Mexicans and favored Cortes and the Spaniards. For example, he continuously called the Mexicans barbarians. He often injects his own opinions in his writing which, my interpretation of that is, a style used in that time period. Prescott, even though he tries not to be bias, is quite bias throughout the book in part because of his sources. Most of his sources can be said to be European or mostly favoring the Spaniards. He does use primary sources; however, these sources represent a certain group of people. I do understand that the time period in which he is writing this book does lack some research, but I feel as if he could have done a bit more.

Trouillot most certainly would have noticed the many silences throughout the book. The major silence is bias towards the Spaniards and the often dislike of the Mexicans. Another bias that Trouillot would have questioned is that of Cortes. Like Jake had stated what about the other side of Cortes? Was not knowing about Cortes’s barbaric side pertinent to the conquest of Mexico?