The Discovery of Europe is a book that changes notions.
Its author, the Sevillian historian Esteban Mira Caballos, spent three decades investigating a kind of history in reverse: the little-known life of the first indigenous people who arrived in Europe since 1493.
And it is that much is known about the natives who stayed in America, but much less about all those who traveled to the Old Continent and changed it forever.
*100007 *The book tells surprising things, such as the benefits that sectors of the indigenous elites claimed from the Spanish Crown for having participated in the conquest.
Or how several of the first mestizos became linked to the highest nobility and Spanish oligarchy.
BBC Mundo spoke with Mira Caballos a few hours after the launch of the book, which is already causing a lot to talk about because, according to the historian, it does not seem to please neither indigenistas nor conservatives.
It is a detailed book, with many surprising sources and revelations, such as the role claimed by the indigenous people in colonization.
When you write about this story that can change various notions, you have to put a lot of critical apparatus; be careful with the sources to be credible.
The book generates debate because it tells things that were known at an academic level but not on the street.
People think that Spain conquered, colonized and administered America, but 95% of the conquerors were indigenous.
Who is going to believe that Francisco Pizarro, with 180 men, conquers Tahuantinsuyo with 2,000 km2? Or that Hernán Cortes, with 508 troops, conquers the Mexica federation?
The conquest was agreed between indigenous and Spanish. When it ends, the indigenous people themselves remain as sergeants and bailiffs and other positions. They remain fighting rebellions of other natives. Spain maintains the entire indigenous structure of cacicazgos, curacazcos and chiefdoms.
In fact, the curacas were one of the biggest harassers of their own, extorting them to pay the Spaniards what was due and maintain their privileges.
Many of these indigenous conquerors appear in Spain demanding their work. The Tlaxcalans, for example, complained that Hernán Cortés would not have achieved anything without them. And, in turn, the Chalcas claimed that they had contributed more than the Tlaxcalans.
In Spain a whole legion of caciques, curacas, pipiltins and Tainos appeared claiming that they were conquerors and administrators asking for privileges: perks, lands, sub-lands and titles of nobility.
And they got them. They called themselves as conquerors as Hernán Cortés.
Much of this indigenous nobility is related to the Spanish nobility. Currently there are great Spanish nobles who are direct descendants of Huayna Cápac or the tlatoani Moctezuma Xocoyotzin.
That is a vision that has caused a sensation, regardless of the dark part of history with slavery, violence and massacres .
It does not seem to be a very consistent version with the current sentences received by Spain and other colonizing countries for their role in this stage of history.
Ideology is always involved in history and in There are three positions for this: Negrolegendarios, RosaLegendarios and historians.
The NegroLegendarios accuse Spain of genocide and they do not budge from that argument.
I have worked for many years in the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Mexico and Peru. I know well the horror of what the Spanish committed, authentic massacres like in the Antilles. That cannot be denied. Nobody called them to go there to civilize or save anyone.
There is a very great polarization. You can’t tell the legendary blacks more than the genocide, but there are also the legendary roses, who believe that Spain was the best, the savior of the savages.
The same discourse with which they justified themselves in the 16th century Legendary roses repeat it in the 21st century: that we were saviors, magnificent, wonderful and that the opposite is all a black legend.
In the middle are historians, who tell things based on documents and reasoning historical. I have gone to congresses with Cuban, Dominican and Mexican historians and there are no great differences between our visions beyond nuances.
History is a long path of corpses. The man is awful. The strongest prevailed over the weakest, but it is something that must be told in its context and that’s it. Historians receive criticism from all sides.
Those from Vox (far-right Spanish party) turn me around and a half, accusing me of being a communist Freemason or Putinean Russian. The indigenistas also criticize me.
Of course, slavery existed and in Cuba it was maintained until well into the 19th century, but it should not be seen as a dark point in the history of Spain, neither a merit nor a demerit . Things were as they were and that’s it.
There was Eurocentrism and from the Old Continent indigenous civilizations were considered barbaric, but they cannot be asked to think like a UN worker in the 21st century.
Not even Father Bartolomé de las Casas, a faithful defender of the treatment of indigenous people, raised the possibility that they could live in their idolatry and outside the gospel.
De las Casas did. What he proposes is that evangelization must be by peaceful means and in that we must recognize him as a pioneer.
Much is known about the indigenous people who stayed in America, but not about those who went to Europe, the great purpose of his book. Many were enslaved.
Spain discovered America on October 12, 1492, but a few months later, on Christopher Columbus’ return voyage, Americans were already arriving in Europe and discovering it.
Always We have the idea of a unidirectional flow, but it was bidirectional from the very beginning.
Since 1493 the first indigenous people arrived and there was a great flow of people, goods, ideas, products, diseases.
*100071 *The virulent strain of syphilis arrived in Spain from America, changing lifestyles. But medicinal plants also arrived to combat it, which were administered in Seville from 1520.
In the early years, many indigenous people arrived in Spain as slaves and Seville became a major focus of the slave trade. Many were marked to register ownership of her.
Here it must be recognized that Queen Isabella the Catholic opposed the enslavement of her new vassals. Very early, in 1500, she outlaws slavery with the exceptions of indigenous cannibals and those captured in just war
Then, in 1530, entire slavery is outlawed, but the Crown backs down because of rebellions natives. The Spaniards convince her that they cannot face these rebellions if they do not capture indigenous people who later serve as slaves.
Abolishing slavery became difficult due to the uprisings and because others, taking advantage, made peaceful indigenous people pass off as rebels to justify slavery through just war. It was not a State policy, but individual actions.
There was a lot of opposition and even reprisals from the owners against the slaves who tried to free themselves, but even so, the indigenous slaves in Spain were practically freed since 1542.*100082 *
Although the flow continued, given that Lisbon was still an important pole for the sale of slaves and the Portuguese continued to trade Brazilian indigenous people, whose protection was not guaranteed by the Crown of Castile.
A slavery that it began precisely with Christopher Columbus, a fact with which he may not be linked so much.
It is true that Columbus began and intended to propose an indigenous traffic of natives from America to Spain and, if they had allowed him, America it would have become a great reservoir of slaves for Europe.
Although it is also true that Columbus was pressured by circumstances. The Crown wanted revenue, to see if their company was profitable. The Columbian factory ran the risk of bankruptcy. Columbus was continually forced to try to justify the profitability and feasibility of his project.
He realized that there was not that much gold and considered, to convince the Crown that it was profitable, that it be they could take thousands of slaves and sell them in the European markets.
I do not think that Columbus was a saint or a demon, but also a character of his time who effectively started the slave trade from America to Europe.*100094 *
How much did the indigenous peoples contribute to the sociocultural context of Europe when they arrived?
In Europe and Spain the brutal influence of America is unknown from the beginning.
First, genetically, because although many indigenous people were allowed to return, 90% of those who arrived stayed, among other things because many came to the Iberian Peninsula very young and knew no other reality.
Many integrated. Then thousands of mestizos also arrived.
Culturally, how many words in Spanish come from the indigenous world? Shark, pineapple, tomato…a very high percentage of Spanish words come from the different indigenous languages.
As for gastronomy, two of the great Spanish dishes, gazpacho and Spanish tortilla, have totally American ingredients. Gazpacho is made from tomato, which is an American plant. The potato tortilla is made with a Peruvian tuber.
Many times we are not aware that a large part of our traditional culture, gastronomy and customs come from the indigenous world.
The amount of works of art that arrive from America very early.
The Crucified of the Brotherhood of the Baratillo of Seville, very devoted here, arrived in the 20s, made with corn cane by the natives of the College of San José de los Naturales in Mexico.
It was not known that many of the devout Spanish crucifixes come from the American world, manufactured there since the early years of the 16th century by indigenous people. These are things that you tell people and they cannot believe it.
There are inventories from the Cabinet of Antiquities of the Duke of Medina Sidonia with plumes of feathers, gold objects, many items due to the fascination of knowing what what was there, what cultures and civilizations had there. The flow was truly impressive.
When you tell all this to the most conservative, especially the genetic issue, they believe that it is an aberration when we say that indigenous blood runs through Spanish blood.
It is which is so surprising in Spain, also because of our egocentrism that we were the Empire, those of us who went there. That they came and influenced us stirs consciences.
Could this have something to do with racism?
I am not clear that there was both racism and classism, even today.
* 100125*Hundreds of mestizos sent by their parents from America also arrived in Spain with a different story.
The best example is Francisca Pizarro Yupanqui, who arrives rich in Spain, moves the court of Felipe II and arrives in live in a small palace in Madrid.
The rich mestizos who arrive in Spain form an authentic mestizo oligarchy, they are among the most recognized in the towns or cities they inhabit and there was no racial problem.
If you were mestizo with money, there was no problem, you were powerful and you married a white Spaniard.
If you were poor, you did suffer discrimination, but not so much because of race but because of poverty. It is surprising that they are behaviors that happen now as in the 16th century.
Curious that the natives also considered the Spaniards as barbarians, as accounts in the book
It is that in America there were different civilizations in different evolutionary degrees with achievements that did not exist in Europe.
For example, the distribution capacity of the Inca empire of Tahuantinsuyo did not exist in the Old Continent.
The indigenous vision of Europe varied according to where they came from. If an indigenous person came from Tenochtitlan, they would not be shocked, because this city was twice the size of Seville.
If an indigenous person came from the jungle area of Florida, Ecuador, etc., it seemed like a barbaric world. They were surprised that there was so much infanticide, so much poverty on the streets, so many destitute, so many scoundrels. More than being impressed by modern buildings, they were struck by extreme poverty.
They came from humble and simple societies, but much more redistributive. In many aboriginal communities, this misery was not allowed among its members.
Many American societies lived in a much more harmonious way than in Europe and their evolution was cut off abruptly by the Spanish. They destroyed great civilizations.
In the book you also break with the stereotype that the indigenous people who came to Europe were naive.
We have that idea of the naive indigenous and not at all. As soon as they arrive here, they set up patronage networks to help each other.
It is interesting that, although in America they did not consider themselves indigenous, in Europe they do assume this class consciousness and take advantage of it.
*100155 *As indigenous people they had benefits that other minorities did not have and they organized among themselves in each town to defend their rights.
There is a very striking case of a certain Esteban de Cabrera, a very long-lived indigenous person released by the Casa of Contracting that was dedicated to encouraging indigenous slaves to ask for their freedom.
And already advanced in the 16th century, these indigenous people learned to move like a fish in water in the courts.There was a structure in Spain with indigenous attorneys who facilitated the procedures of their own, knowing the entire Spanish legal corpus.
Even the indigenous learned to emphasize that they did not have Jewish blood when they claimed nobility and lineage, knowing that the Spanish They valued it very much.
The book also breaks with that stereotype of the naive and permanently deceived indigenous person. They soon let go and end up understanding very well their privileges and all the judicial and criminal resources of Spain.
An important thing: the indigenous never questioned slavery, they question their slavery as people declared free by the Crown of Castile , but not the slavery of blacks, of Africans. That was the mentality of the time.
What was life like for the humble who got their freedom?
Difficult. It depended on their trades. Some were tailors, shoemakers, farmers. Those, when they are released, have a better chance.
Many others do not, and when they are released, they continue to work as servants. And they were lucky. Others ended up begging.
In 1653 there were so many wandering Indians in Spain that a royal order was given to collect them all and return them to America.
There are many differences in how they fared. The nobles, for example, were pensioned by the Crown.
It is important to note that the indigenous were always received by the king. They had direct routes with the monarch and could communicate with letters.
If any Spaniard wanted to see the king, he had a difficult time.
But he considered the natives as his vassals who lived at thousands of kilometers away. The king had never traveled to America nor did he plan to travel. Therefore, he wanted to be informed and have a direct connection
Remember that you can receive notifications from BBC Mundo. Download the new version of our app and activate them so you don’t miss our best content.
