Zunzunegui, the Mexican historian against the Black Legend: Mexican historian...is highly critical, even of Bartolomé de las Casas, the Dominican friar who denounced the excesses committed by the nation at the beginning of the American epic, whom he calls a "narcissistic liar."
https://www.elmundo.es/papel/historias/2024/11/12/673249c2fc6c830e508b459e.html
Zunzunegui, the Mexican historian against the Black Legend: "Spain was not an unfortunate country that had enslaved colonies: we were an empire"
The academic defends the legacy of the Spanish empire on both sides of the Atlantic and is highly critical of the false myths that still persist: "Spain is our father country and America, our mother country," he says.
If Philip II had hired Juan Miguel Zunzunegui as press secretary, the Black Legend spread by England and the Netherlands against the Spanish Monarchy would have been quickly dispelled, and Spain would be more associated with a Christmas advertisement for El Almendro than with the Inquisition, the rape of Indigenous women, or the terror the Duke of Alba inspired in Flanders. This 49-year-old Mexican historian, who has thousands of fans online, is highly critical, even of Bartolomé de las Casas, the Dominican friar who denounced the excesses committed by the nation at the beginning of the American epic, whom he calls a "narcissistic liar." We spoke with him during his visit to Madrid, before he gave a lecture at the Rafael del Pino Foundation. His message is clear: the Spanish Empire functioned, it was more humane with its subjects than the colonies of its geopolitical rivals , and it was a unified whole—a Spain that neither those here nor those there recognize today.
- In school, my textbook talked about the Discovery and Conquest of America, and then only briefly touched upon the loss of the colonies. The 300 years in between were completely ignored.
- The same thing happened in Mexico. These three centuries aren't about an empire that Spain had in America, but about a country that began in the Pyrenees and ended at the Strait of Magellan. Populated by Spaniards. Why only Spaniards? Because Quechua, Aymara, Maya... they all had the status of subjects of the Crown. A country where all Spaniards were equal. We must remember that Isabella I of Castile made it clear that she wanted all her subjects to be cared for. The term "empire" implies understanding that this wasn't a Spain in Europe with colonies like other countries, but a Spain on both sides of the ocean.
- How was that Spain built?
- Hispanic America has much of Spain and much of its indigenous heritage. I say something that is quite controversial: Spain is the father country and America is the mother country. It's a very broad world. Behind Hernán Cortés lies the humanist university, the Renaissance, Judeo-Christianity, the Greco-Roman world. Just as behind Moctezuma lies all of Mesoamerica. In each place, the Spanish seed germinates differently because the indigenous cultures it brings together are very different. The greatest power in the world was a whole, Spain as a whole. To dominate a continent, to dominate the Atlantic and Pacific, to control the Manila galleon for 250 years, which is the foundation of the world economy and the first globalization. Together we were an empire, not a wretched country with enslaved colonies.
- Why do you consider this model much better than that of other European empires?
- If you study the colonies of France, Portugal, or England, you realize that all these countries always did the same thing: they seized the coasts, built large ports, plundered the resources, transported them by ship to the metropolis, and neglected the interior. Spain, however, did not. In Mexico, there is no naval culture, and that is because Spain went inland, where it built cities. The best way to understand this is to look at the cathedrals, like the one in Mexico City or the one in Puebla. You only build a structure that requires so much time to construct if you consider that place to be your own land. Let me give you a current example. If you buy an apartment to rent out, you don't spend much money on decoration; you use that effort for your own home. Well, Spain built the finest temples and altarpieces in the Americas, not in Spain. And the Spanish didn't build them alone. In Mexico in 1560, there were only 30,000 Spaniards, while the indigenous population numbered five million. Together, they built aqueducts, universities, and temples. The churches contain frescoes and indigenous art because the indigenous people are the ones who build them. This isn't done by force, nor is it done by a people who feel conquered.
- He believes that history is studied with resentment in Mexico and with guilt in Spain. Why does he think this is? Is it perhaps a problem of self-esteem?
- It's curious that we deny each other when we even have the same hang-ups. In Mexico, we like to despise Spanish just as much as in Spain.
- Why is he so against speeches apologizing for the past?
- You can't apologize if what you did was build and create. I always say that when politics incites hatred, what should be done is to create more scholarships for students. If you bring a Mexican to Spain, they'll see that Seville is just like Mexico. If you go to Cádiz, to Extremadura, to the entire southern part of the peninsula, people would see that this is the Cartagena of Colombia, Guanajuato, or Zacatecas. The Spaniard who thinks they did horrible things in America does so out of ignorance. Go to America and see for yourself. Look at the hospitals, the universities, the schools, the culture, the folklore...
- Frustrations always need an enemy.
- Of course, if people in the Americas say how wretched the Spanish are, that they stole our future, while in Spain it's argued that the Spanish are the worst of humanity because they destroyed a continent that was like Plato's Atlantis, then that's a problem. Let me give you an example: in the Casa de América in Madrid, a magnificent building, there's a room named after Simón Bolívar. He's honored in every Spanish city, even though he was the one who destroyed America. That recognition makes sense in Latin American countries or even in the United States, but not here, because he destroyed the empire—which I'm not saying should be restored, but I do maintain that it wasn't the horrible thing it's portrayed as.
- Many of the criticisms against the Spanish presence stem from the current situation of Spanish America, in relation to the America that was colonized by Anglo-Saxons.
- It's very easy to fall for that deception. In Mexico, it's often said that if Spain had done things right, we wouldn't be so poor now. Well, you have to remember that in 1810, Mexico was the center of the world. Mexico City was far more prosperous than Madrid. Mexican silver was a universal currency. How many Latin American countries have fared well in the 200 years since their independence? Practically none. To think that the problems we have are Spain's fault and not our own terrible decisions is an argument for seven-year-olds.
- He is very critical of Anglo-Saxon colonialism.
- First of all, the prosperity attributed to Anglo-Saxon countries is only half true. Look at India, Burma, and the half of Africa they occupied. But let's consider the rich countries: the United States, Canada, and Australia. How did their prosperity begin? By killing the locals. And that's something the Spanish should never forget. The famous US Declaration of Independence states that all human beings are free and equal in rights. The problem is that for them, human beings are only white, Anglo-Saxon, and Protestant. In contrast, in Spanish America, all inhabitants have been considered persons for two centuries, where everyone is considered a child of God and a subject of the Crown. In the 16th century, Juan de Sessa, a Black man from Ethiopia, was the Chair of Grammar at the University of Granada. A Black professor four centuries before Black people in the US were allowed to study at university! That's more important than prosperity.
"Spain had black professors at the university 400 years before they were even allowed to study in the US."
To learn more
"We Spaniards are not aware of how great we have been."
- You promote these positive aspects, but there are many other academics in both Mexico and Spain who maintain that an invasion occurred in America and that it was very violent. Do you argue a lot with your colleagues?
- In Mexico, I don't talk much with them. If you dedicate yourself to intellectual pursuits, you're most likely dependent on a government, on a politician, and then your ideas have an owner. I love it when they use the word "invasion." An invasion is what Spain tried to do when it attacked England in 1588, sending an armada of 200 ships and 35,000 men... However, Spain, from the Caribbean, wanted to invade the American continent and did so with 400 sailors, not even soldiers, who were colonists from Cuba. It doesn't make sense. If you invade a territory, you need vast resources to maintain the occupation. One piece of evidence that disproves the invasion theory is that there were no armies in the viceroyalties...
- I understand that there would be a military presence to repel invasions or pirate attacks.
- The army to defend against the English was created under the Bourbons. Why so late? Because in the viceroyalty, no one felt conquered or invaded. Consider that in New Spain, the lingua franca wasn't Spanish, but Nahuatl. Who speaks the language of the people they conquer? The Spanish wrote grammars of Nahuatl, Mayan, and Quechua. The English never wrote a grammar of Hindi.
- What is the reason for this greater humanism of the Spanish empire that he defends? It can't be because of Catholicism, because France and Portugal were also Catholic.
- I believe Spain acted the way it did because it was Spain. Spaniards have no trouble mixing with other peoples. They are a blend of Iberian, Celtic, Roman, Greek, Jewish, Visigothic, and Arab. The Spanish language of Spain has words from very different origins, just as the Spanish of the Americas includes indigenous vocabulary. Another circumstance I believe was important was the lack of women. The vast majority of those who embarked for the Americas were men, and when they arrived, they had relations with the indigenous women, whom they baptized and took as wives.
- You deny that this was a widespread rape of women.
- Had that been the case, those women wouldn't have been baptized—something that was very serious for a Christian at the time—and then they would have married. That, and a grammar of their language. Hernán Cortés's first son was named Martín Cortés Malintzin. His father named him Martín after his grandfather, whom he revered, and gave him his surname and his mother's. He even sent an embassy to the Pope to legitimize him. Who would do that if they were racist?
Comments