Why do you think that Native Allies and African Conquistadors were not mentioned in European accounts of the conquest? Do you think it was intentional or unintentional? Why?

Portrayals of Malintzin have been unfair to her, historically. My question is this: why do you think the stories have been so unfair to her, while Cortes and other conquistadors are either rewarded or ignored for actually carrying out the conquest?

How do your readings connect to either of these questions?

Lecture 3- Steamrolling?

“Malintzin was the indigenous woman who translated for Hernando Cortés in his dealings with the Aztec emperor Moctezuma in the days of 1519 to 1521. “Malintzin,” at least, was what the Indians called her. The Spanish called her doña Marina, and she has become known to posterity as La Malinche. As Malinche, she has long been regarded as a traitor to her people, a dangerously sexy, scheming woman who gave Cortés whatever he wanted out of her own self-interest.

The life of the real woman, however, was much more complicated. She was sold into slavery as a child, and eventually given away to the Spanish as a concubine and cook. If she managed to make something more out of her life–and she did–it is difficult to say at what point she did wrong.”

Actually, that is a good question: what did she do wrong? Not much, it turns out– having been sold by her family, and again by the subsequent owners, exactly what kind of loyalty was she supposed to have? Who was it that she was supposed to not “sell out?” No one, it turns out. Historians today know that she was doing her best to stay alive, and make a life for herself, and given her situation and life experiences, it is hard to expect anything more.

For me, at least, this raises a simple question: why are people in such a hurry to blame Malintzin for the conquest, when, in fact, they should be blaming the Spanish? Why did the blame shift to her, instead of where it should have been– on Cortes and his men? Just curious.