"Rather than perpetuating polarization and resentment, it is essential to promote a more inclusive and constructive vision of history, which recognizes the diversity of actors and experiences that have shaped Mexico's identity"
Have you ever wondered why we continue to blame the Spanish Conquest for all of Mexico's ills?
Is Christopher Columbus a villain, a hero, or simply a man of his time?
In this blog, we invite you on a journey through history to explore these questions and reflect on how the past influences our present.
Join me to discover a more complex and constructive perspective on the conquest of Mexico and its legacy.
MAKING PEACE / WITH THE PAST MEANS:
Accepting what happened means recognizing that the past cannot be changed, and that holding on to pain, resentment, or anger only causes us suffering.
Finding meaning, even though the past may have been painful, we can find meaning and learn from historical experiences.
Forgiving others, in many cases, making peace with the past, involves forgiving those who have hurt us. Forgiveness does not mean justifying the actions of others, but rather freeing ourselves from resentment and moving forward.
Reconciling with ourselves, making peace with the past also involves reconciling with ourselves, accepting our past decisions and actions, and forgiving ourselves for our mistakes.
Living in the present, making peace with the past allows us to free ourselves from the bonds of the past and live fully in the present.
Mexico's relationship with its past, particularly the Conquest, is a complex and emotionally charged topic. Anger and resentment over events that occurred more than 500 years ago are understandable, considering the human and cultural losses suffered by indigenous peoples. However, the question of whether Mexico should apologize to Spain or forgive itself in order to make peace with its past opens up a multi-faceted debate.
Let's analyze both perspectives:
Apologize to Spain:
Arguments in favor, Some might argue that Spain, as a nation, bears a historical responsibility for the actions of the conquistadors. A formal apology could be a symbolic act of acknowledging the suffering caused and a step towards reconciliation between the two countries.
Counterarguments: Others might argue that an apology from Spain would be pointless, since the people responsible for the Conquest are no longer alive. They might also argue that Mexico, as an independent nation, should focus on its present and future, rather than reliving past wounds.
Forgiving yourself:
Arguments in favor, This perspective focuses on the idea that holding on to anger and resentment only creates suffering and limits Mexico's ability to move forward. Forgiving oneself as a nation would involve acknowledging the pain of the past, accepting that it cannot be changed, and focusing on building a more just and equitable future for all Mexicans.
Counterarguments: Some might argue that forgiving oneself could be interpreted as a way of minimizing or justifying the atrocities committed during the Conquest. Furthermore, they might consider that it is necessary for Spain to assume its historical responsibility before Mexico can begin a process of forgiveness and reconciliation.
From a Strategic and Mentoring point of view, the key lies in
finding a balance between both perspectives.
Recognition of the past: It is essential that both Mexico and Spain recognize the complexity and consequences of the Conquest. This implies an honest and open dialogue about the past, which includes teaching history from a critical and inclusive perspective.
Shared responsibility: although Spain has a historical responsibility for the Conquest, it is important to recognize that the construction of present-day Mexico is the result of a complex historical process in which various actors have participated, including Mexicans themselves.
Focus on the future, beyond apologies or forgiveness, what is crucial is that Mexico focuses on building a better future for all its citizens, based on justice, equality and respect for cultural diversity.
Reconciliation, reconciliation with the past does not mean forgetting or justifying the atrocities committed, but rather understanding them in their historical context and working to overcome divisions and build a more united and harmonious future.
It is understandable that, especially in Mexico, Columbus is associated with the oppression and subjugation of indigenous peoples. However, reducing his figure to this single dimension prevents us from understanding his role in a broader historical context.
While it is undeniable that the Conquest had negative consequences for the indigenous peoples of Mexico (Tenochtitlan), such as the loss of lives, the destruction of cultures and the imposition of a colonial system, attributing all the current ills of the country to it is a historical simplification and a way of evading responsibilities.
This narrative seeks to create an external enemy (Spain and the conquistadors) to divert attention from the failures and deficiencies of current governments. By blaming the past, Morena administrations (with PRI origins) are exempted from the responsibility of solving the problems that plague Mexico, such as poverty, inequality, corruption and violence.
SCAPEGOAT
This mechanism works by diverting attention from real problems and personal responsibility, directing frustration and discontent towards a common enemy.
By creating an "other" who can be blamed for all ills, internal cohesion is fostered and actions that would otherwise be unacceptable are justified.
Hitler used this resource systematically and perversely, blaming the Jews for all of Germany's problems, from the defeat in World War I to the economic crisis. This strategy allowed him to consolidate his power, mobilize the population and justify persecution and genocide.
Other historical examples of this phenomenon include:
Witch-hunting in the Middle Ages: Women were blamed for misfortunes and calamities, using them as scapegoats to explain the inexplicable.
McCarthyism in the United States: During the Cold War, communists and sympathizers were accused of infiltrating institutions, creating a climate of paranoia and persecution.
Xenophobia and racism: At different times in history, immigrants and ethnic minorities have been blamed for economic and social problems, fuelling hatred and discrimination.
It is important to be alert to these types of strategies, as they are often used by authoritarian and populist leaders to manipulate the population and justify discriminatory and violent policies.
Recognizing the scapegoat mechanism is crucial to avoid falling into its traps and defending the values of tolerance and justice.
CONTEMPORARY EXAMPLES: UNITED STATES OF NORTH AMERICA
Blame the Rich: The Republican Strategy to Divide America
The Forgotten Bronze Belt Scapegoat: How Republicans Blame the Rich for Inequality
Polarization in the United States has intensified in recent years, and Republican administrations have contributed to this by pointing to the rich as the main culprits of the problems affecting the working class, especially in the Bronze Belt.
This strategy, while seemingly seeking to connect with the concerns of ordinary people, simplifies reality and diverts attention from other factors that contribute to inequality and poverty.
FACTS
The Bronze Belt: This region, which spans the Northeast and Midwest of the United States, was once a thriving industrial center. But in recent decades it has suffered economic decline due to corporate relocation, automation and globalization. This situation has created a breeding ground for resentment and frustration, which politicians can exploit.
Populist rhetoric: Republican leaders have used populist language to blame economic elites for the problems of the Bronze Belt. The rich are accused of benefiting from globalization at the expense of workers, of evading taxes and of controlling the political system for their own benefit. This rhetoric seeks to mobilize the vote of the white working class, who feel abandoned by the system.
Simplifying the problem: While wealth concentration and inequality are serious problems in the United States, blaming the rich alone is an oversimplification. Other factors such as lack of investment in education and infrastructure, unfavorable trade policies, and discrimination also contribute to poverty and inequality.
Deflection of responsibility: By focusing attention on the wealthy, attention is diverted from the Republicans' own policies that have favored large corporations and the wealthiest, such as tax cuts and deregulation. It also ignores the government's responsibility to create an economic environment that benefits all citizens.
Consequences of polarization: This strategy of blaming the rich contributes to political and social polarization, creating a climate of division and confrontation. It makes it difficult to find consensual solutions to the country's problems and erodes trust in institutions.
While it is important to address the problems of inequality and the concentration of wealth, this must be done responsibly and constructively. Blaming only the rich is a simplistic strategy that not only distorts reality, but also fuels polarization and makes it difficult to find solutions .
CONTEMPORARY EXAMPLES: UNITED MEXICAN STATES
The strategy of blaming the Spanish (Castilian) Conquest for Mexico's current problems, used by the Morena administrations, is a clear example of the scapegoat mechanism we mentioned above.
While it is undeniable that the Conquest had negative consequences for the indigenous peoples of Mexico (Tenochtitlan), such as the loss of lives, the destruction of cultures and the imposition of a colonial system, attributing all the current ills of the country to it is a historical simplification and a way of evading responsibilities.
This narrative seeks to create an external enemy (Spain and the conquistadors) to divert attention from the failures and shortcomings of current governments. By blaming the past, Morena administrations are absolved of the responsibility of solving the problems that plague Mexico, such as poverty, inequality, corruption and violence.
Furthermore, this strategy fosters a polarized view of history, where the Spanish are presented as the only villains and the indigenous people as passive victims. The complexity of the historical process, which included alliances between indigenous people and Spanish, indigenous resistance and the participation of various actors, is ignored.
It is important to note that the history of Mexico is not limited to the Conquest. The country has experienced various historical processes, such as Independence, the Revolution and the construction of the modern State, which have also contributed to its current situation.
Blaming the Conquest for all of Mexico's ills is not only a historical fallacy, but also prevents a critical and objective analysis of reality. To build a better future, it is necessary to understand the past in its entirety, assume present responsibilities and work on concrete solutions to the problems facing the country.
Rather than perpetuating polarization and resentment, it is essential to promote a more inclusive and constructive vision of history that recognizes the diversity of actors and experiences that have shaped Mexico's identity.
SERENDIPITY, THE FAULT OF / CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS
“Serendipity” is the circumstance of finding by chance something that was not sought; this is the case of many entrepreneurs like Columbus, who while looking for a new route to the East found a Continent”
Rethinking Columbus: Hero or complex figure?
The figure of Christopher Columbus is at the centre of an intense debate today. Rather than falling into the simplification of "hero" or "villain", it is crucial to analyse his legacy with a critical and nuanced eye. While the traditional notion of a hero implies acts that benefit and save others from danger, Columbus' story is much more complex.
His journey across the Atlantic was undoubtedly an extraordinary feat that challenged the way of thinking of his time. However, the consequences of his "discovery" for the indigenous peoples of America were devastating, forcing us to question the idea of Columbus as a hero in the traditional sense.
It is understandable that, especially in Mexico, Columbus is associated with the oppression and subjugation of indigenous peoples. However, reducing his figure to this single dimension prevents us from understanding his role in a broader historical context.
Rather than demonizing or idealizing Columbus, it is essential to approach him objectively and with complexity, recognizing both his achievements and the negative consequences of his actions. Only in this way can we fully understand his legacy and draw relevant lessons for the present.
Columbus was a man of his time, with its lights and shadows. His audacity and perseverance led him to challenge established models and beliefs, driving European exploration and expansion. In this sense, we can consider him as part of the "Cycle of Invention", a process that combines imagination, creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship.
THE CYCLE OF INVENTION AND DISCOVERY OF AMERICA
Beyond Demonization: Reassessing the Legacy of Christopher Columbus
At a time when the figure of Christopher Columbus is the subject of controversy, it is necessary to go beyond the simple hero/villain dichotomy and analyze his legacy in greater depth. While the traditional concept of a hero is associated with feats that benefit humanity, Columbus' story is characterized by its complexity.
It is undeniable that his journey across the Atlantic was a feat that challenged the ideas of his time. However, the consequences of his arrival in America for the indigenous peoples were largely negative, which makes it difficult to praise him as a hero in the classical sense.
In Mexico in particular, there is a tendency to associate Columbus with oppression and indigenous subjugation. While this perspective is understandable, reducing his figure to this single dimension is limiting and prevents a comprehensive understanding of his historical role.
Columbus, as a man of his time, had virtues and defects. His audacity and perseverance led him to challenge conventions and to promote the exploration of the world. In this sense, we can frame his figure within the "Cycle of Invention" , a process that involves imagination, creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship.
Rather than demonizing or idealizing his figure, it is essential to analyze Columbus objectively, recognizing both his achievements and the consequences of his actions. Only in this way can we understand his legacy in all its magnitude and extract valuable lessons for the present.
Let's analyze the Cycle of Invention, from the perspective of the Discovery of America.
First element of the invention cycle: Imagination and the legacy of the Greeks
It was already known since ancient times that the Earth was round; Aristotle was a precursor to this idea, which was probably born from “observation and imagination”.
In fact, in the 4th century BC there was already serious evidence of this hypothesis, through empirical tests, observing how the firmament changed and new stars appeared as man moved over its surface.
In the post-medieval world (16th and 17th centuries), geographers and astronomers, although they rejected many ideas inherited from the Middle Ages, such as whether the Earth was the center of the universe or not, the thesis that the Earth was flat was not a subject of discussion, it was practically taken as a fact.
When Columbus presented his idea for a voyage at the “Salamanca Conference”, the members of the commission evaluating the voyage project were fully aware that the Earth was round; in fact, the dimensions of the Earth were already known approximately; “the only thing discussed in the commission was that Asia, the objective of Columbus’ voyage, was too far away to make a journey without stages. At no time did they base their opposition to the voyage on the authority of the Bible.”
Second element of the invention cycle: Creativity, proving that the journey to the East along the coasts of Africa was possible
We must be clear-headed, so as not to be deceived, as Columbus's voyage did not aim to prove that the Earth was round, much less discover a new continent; the reality is that the Europeans needed to find new trade routes to the East from where they brought spices and silks.
Let us remember that the end of the Middle Ages was in 1453, with the fall of Constantinople (Byzantium) to the Turks, resulting in the control of ship traffic in the Mediterranean. For this reason, the countries of Europe sought new routes to Asia around Africa.
Third element of the invention cycle: Innovation, discovering a new continent by accident
In the life of every entrepreneur who lives strategic thinking, complementary strategies appear from time to time, called by some authors "Serendipity", that is, the circumstance of finding by chance something that was not sought; this is the case of many entrepreneurs like Columbus, who searching for a new route to the East found a Continent.
On August 3, 1492, Christopher Columbus' first voyage took place, also known as the "Voyage of Discovery", with the purpose of finding a new trade route to the East, which, although it did not reach its desired objective, "Serendipity" appeared as a complementary strategy, leading him to discover a new Continent, thus beginning the first stage of globalization in the history of humanity.
Christopher Columbus' first voyage west across the Atlantic set sail from the port of Palos on August 3, 1492. Preparations had been arduous and time-consuming. Obtaining ships and crew proved difficult, as Columbus was unknown to the seafarers of the area (Creativity).
Fourth element of the invention cycle: Entrepreneurship, “captivating and making others fall in love” with the idea that it is possible and viable
The IMAGINATION capacity of the Greeks to presuppose and generate hypotheses that the Earth was round, led the Europeans to solve the problem, faced with the blockade by the Turks, of finding a new trade route to the East, through CREATIVITY , resulting in a RADICAL INNOVATION with nuances of Serendipity.
However, it was Columbus's ENTREPRENEURIAL capacity , convincing and captivating others with the idea of a new trade route to the East, which ended in the discovery, which, although the original objective was not met, a complementary, alternate objective of much greater value was found: the "Discovery of America" whose significance is to be the first base of globalization, an irreversible process that will totally reconfigure the planet in the near future.
Columbus had to convince the commissioners of the Salamanca Conference of his idea, since of the three ships that would make the voyage, two were handed over to Columbus in Palos, as a result of a punishment that weighed on the port and which forced its authorities to hand them over.
For the third ship, he had to convince Juan de la Cosa, who leased the ship with funds acquired from lenders with whom he also had to do the entrepreneurial work.
He set out with the friars of La Rábida and through them, the Admiral met the prestigious sailors of the Pinzón de Palos clan and the Niño de Moguer. These were decisive when it came to gathering the ninety men required to crew the ships and the provisions necessary for such a long expedition.
The significance of the discovery of America lies in a process of Globalization that began in 1492 and has advanced over the centuries until our time, as Thomas Friedman describes well:
Globalization is a process that designates a new phase in the planetary integration of economic, financial, ecological and cultural phenomena. This phenomenon, which is neither linear nor irreversible, also refers to the rapprochement between men and is the result of the liberalization of markets. This development of an interdependent world space is not new and began with Roman civilization, which already organized its empire around the Mediterranean.
Globalization and its integration processes are the only tools to end economic inequalities on a global scale, both for companies and for governments and individuals, since it allows for a balance of powers.
Thomas L. Friedman calls the present period “globalization 3.0,” differentiating it from the two preceding ones:
📌"Globalization 1.0" in which countries and governments were the main protagonists that established trade rules.
📌"Globalization 2.0" in which multinational companies paved the way for a process of global integration of the economy.
Thus, according to Thomas Friedman , the process of globalization has developed in three major stages:
The first stage extends from 1492, when Christopher Columbus (1451-1506) opened the trade route between the Old Continent and the New World, until 1800.
The second stage goes from 1800 to the year 2000, it is the era of the Industrial Revolution, of telecommunications and of the expansion of Western companies to global markets, interrupted by the Great Depression (1929-late 1930s) and the two world wars.
Stage three (21st century) sees the world shrink and flatten to make way for hyper-connectivity between countries and individuals around the world.
THE ENTREPRENEUR, SERENDIPITY AND HISTORICAL COMPLEXITY: THE LESSONS OF COLUMBUS' VOYAGE
The story of Christopher Columbus offers valuable lessons for every innovative entrepreneur. His experience, marked by a "discovery" that did not fit the original objective, illustrates the importance of serendipity in the entrepreneurial process. This concept, which refers to the valuable and unexpected discovery that arises while searching for something different, teaches us that the path to innovation can be full of surprises and unexpected twists.
Colón, like many entrepreneurs today, faced a context full of uncertainties and challenges. His perseverance and ability to adapt were key to taking advantage of the opportunity that presented itself to him, even though it was different from his initial expectations.
It is crucial, however, to go beyond a romantic vision of the enterprise and recognize the historical complexity surrounding Columbus's voyage.
The figure of Christopher Columbus, often the center of polarized debates, invites us to a deeper reflection on the conquest of Mexico and the construction of historical narrative.
While it is true that his arrival in America triggered a process that would culminate in the fall of Tenochtitlan, it is crucial to avoid simplification and analyze events with a broader perspective.
The idea that "with or without Columbus" the conquest of Mexico would have occurred inevitably requires further analysis. Although European expansion was an ongoing phenomenon, the specific circumstances of the encounter between Spaniards and indigenous peoples in Mesoamerica played a decisive role in the outcome of events.
It is essential to remember that the conquest of Mexico was not just a Spanish military imposition, but a complex process that involved alliances between Cortes and various indigenous peoples who saw in the Spanish an opportunity to free themselves from Aztec domination. The annoyance and discontent generated by the Tenocha empire was a key factor that facilitated the advance of Cortes and his allies.
It is also important to note that the notion of "Mexico" as a unified country did not exist before the arrival of the Spanish. Mesoamerica was a mosaic of cultures and peoples with different languages, customs and political systems. The Spanish conquest involved a process of territorial and cultural unification that would give rise to the Mexico we know today.
Therefore, rather than "demonizing" or exonerating Columbus, it is necessary to understand his role in a broader historical context. The conquest of Mexico was a multi-causal process in which various factors intervened, including the ambitions of the Spanish conquistadors, rivalries among indigenous peoples, and the political and social circumstances of the time.
In conclusion, the history of the conquest of Mexico invites us to overcome simplistic views and to analyze the past with rigor and complexity. Only in this way will we be able to understand the roots of our identity and build a more just and equitable future.
Sources:
1) National Geographic: https://historia.nationalgeographic.com.es/a/terraplanismo-edad-media_14991
2) The Expansion of Europe, 14th and 15th centuries: http://www7.uc.cl/sw_educ/historia/expansion/HTML/p3101h.html
3) Friedman, Thomas L. 2006. The Earth is Flat: A Brief History of the Globalized World of the 21st Century. Barcelona: Martínez Roca.
Comentarios