"TEACHING LATIN AMERICAN HISTORY" (This essay marks the re-emergence of a regular column on teaching-related issues. Potential contributors should contact Linda K. Salvucci, Chair, Teaching and Teaching Materials Committee, Department of History, Trinity University, 715 Stadium Drive, San Antonio, TX 78212. Other suggestions for Committee activities are always welcome.) "1492: Encounter of Two Worlds" An Undergraduate Quincentenary Course at Brown University R. Douglas Cope Thomas E. Skidmore History Department Brown University The Columbus quincentenary is upon us, borne on a rising tide of a controversy. The anniversary has, as expected, generated an impressive body of noteworthy scholarship, as well as numerous commemorative and educational activities. New publications (and reissues of old standards) are appearing at an ever increasing tempo; two quincentenary exhibits--"Seeds of Change" at the Smithsonian, and another at the National Gallery-- have opened in Washington this fall; in October, PBS aired an eight-hour documentary on "Columbus and the Age of Discovery." What is perhaps more significant, however, is that quincentenary debate and discussion has not been confined to academia and its outliers. Columbus has sailed from the textbooks to the front page, and in the process he is being redefined in popular discourse as a less heroic and more troubling figure. More than ever before, the American public is aware of the "other side" of the story, prompting a recent Time magazine cover to ask: "Will the hero of 1492 be the villain of 1992?" Several commentators have responded "no", rousing to defend the Admiral against "Columbus--bashing" and thereby (as they see it) uphold the value of Western civilization. Indeed, while the figure of Columbus provides the necessary "hook" in our celebrity--obsesses culture, in reality he serves as a stand-in for Western man (the term is used advisedly). The dispute over the Columbian legacy is closely linked to the contemporary debate over "political correctness," multi-culturalism, and the meaning of a liberal education. For this very reason, we believe that the quincentenary offers an unparalleled opportunity to reassess--for ourselves and our students--this turning point in human history. Never again, perhaps, will it be so easy to persuade students that the events of five hundred years ago have relevance today. Our corresponding responsibility is to elevate the level of the discussion. We must push beyond superficial generalizations, easy resort to polar opposites, or bland pronouncements that, well, Columbus has his good and bad points. We must, in short, confront the students with the complex social reality of this decisive epoch. The Quincentenary statement endorses by the AHA (published in the November Perspectives) offers some basic guidelines, but is no more than a starting point. How can we best translate our good intentions into effective and worthwhile courses? In the Spring 1991 semester Brown University offered a Latin American Studies course entitled "1492: The Encounter of Two Worlds." This course reflected some eighteen months of planning and preparation. It began as the brain child of Jose Amor y Vazquez, doyen of Hispanic Studies at Brown. His proposal, made at a meeting of the Center for Latin American Studies, drew an immediate and enthusiastic response. Several of us began to hold regular meetings to devise the course; eventually there emerged a "core group," who would do the bulk of the teaching: the authors of this paper; Ellen Messer, an anthropologist; and Julio Ortega, a specialist on Latin American literature. During the 1989-90 academic year, with financial aid from Brown's Wayland Collegium, we invited a series of notable scholars to Brown, including Juan Bautista Avalle Acre, Louise Burkhart, Alfred W. Crosby, John Elliott, William McNeill, Joseph Miller, Michael Ritchie, Linda Schele, Steve Stern, Consuela Varela, and Margarita Zamora. Each gave a public lecture, and also shared insights and made suggestions about the course in after dinner discussion. By the spring of 1990 we had worked out the basic organization of the course; the remaining pedagogical concerns (papers, exams, etc.) were settled in the fall. The results of our deliberation may be seen in the appended syllabus. We have been told that "1492: The Encounter of Two Worlds" was one of the earliest courses on the subject to be offered in this country. The following paper is presented in the hope that a review of our experience will prove useful to those planning similar courses in the future, and that we in turn will benefit from your suggestions and criticism. (We intend to offer a revised version of the course in the fall semester of 1992). This paper has three parts. First, we will discuss the issues we confronted in putting together the course, and the rationale behind the choices we made. We do not claim that our decisions were necessarily correct, but we hope that watching us "think through" the organization of our course will help others identify potential problem areas and will act as a catalyst for the ideas of others about teaching strategies. The next section will examine the strengths and weaknesses of our approach as revealed in practice. How well did the course work? In answering this question, we have relied both on the faculty and teaching assistants' self-assessment and on detailed questionnaires given out to students at semester's end. Finally, we reflect on what we have learned and make a few practical recommendations. Because of its genesis, we always envisioned "1492: The Encounter of Two Worlds" as a multi-disciplinary, team-taught course. Therefore, the first and, in many ways, central problem was how to integrate our varied perspectives. There was some discussion of dividing the course into three blocks: Anthropology, History and Literature. The historians protested, however, arguing that this would erect artificial walls at a time of increasing osmosis and interplay among these disciplines. It would be difficult, for example to discuss the impact of Christianity on native religions from strictly separate historical and anthropological viewpoints. We also felt that this proposal reflected a "Joe Friday" vision of history, in which historians provide the facts while anthropologists and literary analysts provide the interpretations. The committee decided instead on an essentially chronological format. The course would have five sections: 1) Europe and the Americas Before the Encounter; 2) Two Worlds Meet; 3) The Confrontation of Cosmologies; 4) Perceptions of the Colonial Experience; and 5) The Legacy of the Encounter. In any given section, at least two and often all three disciplines would be represented, either by Messer, Ortega and Cope or by a guest lecturer. If the professors attended each others' sessions, they could then shape their future lectures accordingly. We thus hoped to develop an multidisciplinary dialogue over the course of the semester. Another major decision reached with little dissent, was to emphasize original texts. The weekly readings consist largely of primary material, with secondary sources kept to a minimum. Several motives lay behind this decision. First, we believed this approach would give students a sense of immediacy, a better "feel" for the people and events of a distant time. Second, the texts themselves were often the best illustration of the themes we wished to explore: think of the religious syncretism in the Popol Vuh, or the clash of world views revealed in the contrast between Bernal Diaz and The Broken Spears. Third, these texts would allow us to demonstrate both the similarities and the differences in how each discipline reads sources critically. Along these lines, one lecture (12 February by Julio Ortega) was specifically devoted to a critical analysis of Columbus' journal. Other consequences flowed from this decision to emphasize texts. For instance, the sources we were interested in using covered many different regions: the Caribbean (the Columbus journal); central Mexico (The Broken Spears), Yucatan (Popol Vuh) and Peru (Garcilaso's Royal Commentaries). Therefore, the geographic scope of the course would be quite broad, rather than focused on a specific region. However, to avoid even greater complications, we reluctantly concluded that Brazil should be omitted. (Had the English translation of Jean de Lery's History of a Voyage to the Land of Brazil been available at that time, we might have decided differently.) The time frame of the course was also affected. We had originally planned to concentrate on the first two generations of the encounter, with the outer boundary at about 1550. But some of the selected readings-- notably Garcilaso and Guaman Poma--pushed us into the early seventeenth century. The emphasis on texts, and our multidisciplinary approach, required students to play a sophisticated role in the course, to become active partners in the educational process. In practice, this would put a heavy burden on the teaching assistants, who would lead class discussions. Fortunately we were able to get able teaching assistants (Lesley Byrne and Melissa Marshall) for a class of about fifty students, which meant they would have discussion sections of a manageable size. To further encourage student participation, we weighted the sections as fifteen percent of the total grade, and required students to turn in a one-page paper at the beginning of each section, based on a question handed out earlier in the week. Our hope was to give students an incentive to come to their discussion sections prepared, not only having done the readings, but having thought carefully and critically about them. The faculty and teaching assistants met every Monday morning (the course was taught in a seventy-five minute period on Tuesday and Thursday mornings) to discuss: 1) the approaches to be used in the week's upcoming lectures; 2) ideas and lines of analysis to be developed by the teaching assistants in that week's discussion sections (normally held once a week); 3) the question to be assigned for the following week's discussion sections; and 4) our own and our students' reactions to the course thus far. As our geographical and temporal scope widened, the course moved away from its supposed focus: 1492. Neither the Caribbean or columbus himself loomed large in the final version of the syllabus. Following the advice of several Wayland series speakers, we decided that making the Columbian voyages a centerpiece of the course would be a mistake. We did not want to become bogged down in the minutiae of the admiral's life: his ethnic and social origin, the creation of his first landfall, etc. We were less interested in Columbus as man or mariner than in the consequences of his voyages. Certainly Columbus cropped up throughout the course, but generally speaking we treated him as a representative of European society, and an exemplar of European perceptions, rather than as an extraordinary, would- historical figure. As for the Caribbean, it is true that these islands felt the first impact of epidemic disease and "ecological imperialism" witnessed the earliest attempts to transplant Hispanic civilization to the Americas, with the resultant disruption of destruction of native societies and launched the long history of indigenous resistance and accommodation to European invaders. However, we felt these themes (and others) could best be studied as they developed over the long term and on a larger scale. Partly to compensate for this shift in focus, Skidmore undertook to give two "bookend" lectures. The first would attempt to relate the course to the ongoing Columbus controversy. The second ("Back to Columbus") would both summarize the main points of the course and emphasize the ways in which the encounter continues to affect the modern world. Recipes are fine, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. How did the course turn out? On the whole, both we and the students were satisfied. Of course, the inevitable glitches occurred: we had trouble obtaining the necessary audio-visual equipment, and one of our guest speakers had to be replaced at the last minute. But these proved minor distractions. The course received generally favorable reviews from students; the majority voted it "good" to "excellent". In class, the students were attentive and engaged, the ambience--perhaps keyed by Skidmore's often irreverent inaugural lecture--open and friendly. Students certainly felt free to ask questions, and did so frequently; on occasion, lectures turned into class discussions. What of the organizational difficulties in a course that featured no fewer than eight different lecturers? Happily, our greatest fear--that the course would fly off in several different directions--proved groundless. Even the guest speakers, a potential Achilles heel in this regard, diligently tailored their presentations to meet our specific requests. On the other hand, we did not fully solve the problem of integrating our varied perspectives. Student responses to the question "How successful was our effort to combine the approaches of history, anthropology, and literature?" covered the entire spectrum. Some said that the course was better integrated than they had anticipated. Others complained that the lectures "jumped around," or noted (not necessarily negatively) that the historical perspective dominated. The harshest critics stated that the course tended to degenerate into a lecture series, one likened the lectures to chapters from the same book." Several evaluations had interesting ideas for improving this aspect of the course, which we have taken under consideration. For instance, one student thought that we should reserve one lecture for a discussion of disciplinary methodologies; another thought that the first five minutes of each session should be devoted to laying out the comparative framework into which the new lecture would fit. Our judgment is that while the lectures were not as integrated as we would have liked, the problem was not so great that it threatened the cohesion of the course. Indeed, there are indications that the students adapted to the team-taught format as the course progressed, since their performance improved over time: the second paper and the final examination were considerably better than their earlier counterparts. The chronological structure of the course created (at least from a historian's perspective) a rather straightforward progression of topics, each building on a previously laid foundation. Thus, a consideration of fifteenth-century Europe and the contemporary notions of exploration and discovery led to a discussion of European perceptions of the New World and its inhabitants, which in turn set up the lecture on military conquest. (As we shall see below, however, this sequence also presented certain problems.) In similar fashion, pre-Columbian religion, the Spanish missionary enterprise, and indigenous responses to Christianity formed a natural unit. One may fairly say that the different perspectives complemented each other. But we failed to develop a true interdisciplinary dialogue. In practice, busy schedules (all of us except Cope taught this course as an overload) meant that we could not always attend each other's sections. Our lectures, in fact tended to remain self-contained units, with few cross- references. Occasionally, one of us might contrast, say, historical and anthropological approaches to evidence, or even emit a mild criticism of another discipline. For example, Cope once suggested that an emphasis on colonial "discourse" tended to neglect the actual, physical violence employed by the Spanish conquistadors, as well as the Indians' capacity for resistance. But these were passing remarks which seldom provoked a response, rather than an integral part of the course. The disciplines retained their own agendas. The faculty may have felt they had their hands full just covering their "own" material. Individual speakers had little room to maneuver; one could not (with few exceptions) lap over into the next lecture since that "belonged" to someone else. In most cases, these lectures were brand new, or at least considerably revised, so that pacing one's talk, or simply discussing the topic in the allotted time, could become a problem. Lectures casually agreed to months before (discuss fifteenth-century Europe in eight minutes) seemed more intractable or unrealistic in the event. This gave some of the sessions a rushed and superficial feel. Now superficially is the inevitable concomitant of one-term average; and team-taught courses deliberately substitute multiple perspectives for the cumulative vision that a single lecturer can build over the semester. Still, some of us felt that we had gone too far in sacrificing depth for breadth. The course had another, and more serious, flaw. Both the students and (in retrospect) the faculty criticized the course for an imbalance between indigenous and European perspectives. Despite our best efforts, our approach was too Eurocentric. In part the problem lay in the structure of the first third of the course. A single lecture on pre-Columbian societies attention shifted to developments in Europe for the next three sessions and then to European perceptions of the encounter. As a result, we unwittingly tended to reinforce the stereotypes of Europeans as actors, the makers of history, and Native Americans as reactors. In addition, the indigenous peoples appeared primarily as "Indians," i.e., as seen through the eyes of Europeans. Naturally, the speakers themselves combated this viewpoint. For instance, Messer's opening lecture stressed the depth and complexity of historical development in pre-Columbian societies, while Cope's discussion of military conquest pointed out that indigenous political and social structures provided the key to Spanish success or failure. Even so, as late as the midterm examination, teaching assistants reported that many students considered our treatment of native people inadequate; in particular, they felt the lack of sufficient specific information on any one state or society which would allow them to evaluate the true impact of the counter. Our emphasis on texts compounded this problem. European voices clearly dominated the course readings. We readily obtained a wide variety of European courses, varying from literature (the Lusiads), to first person accounts (Bernal Diaz), to government documents (the Lunenfeld-edited collection of readings). Indigenous texts are less accessible, in two senses: 1) there are far fewer of them, especially in English translation; and 2) they tend to seem more "alien" to Westerners. This, of course, is precisely the point - these texts offer us a window on alternate visions of reality - but it does mean they provide special problems of interpretation. An additional complication is that these texts are post-conquest. (For the pre-Columbian period proper, we used one of our few secondary sources, Eric Wolf's Sons of the Shaking Earth). How accurately do the selections in The Broken Spears, composed in the mid- sixteenth century, reflect native views at the time of the conquest? We did not budget enough classroom time to deal with such issues. The texts themselves, however, proved a great success. As we had hoped, the students found it both challenging and exciting to immerse themselves in such distant and different metal worlds. True, some of the more unusual primary sources--such as the Libro de Cosmographia of 1538--did not go over very well. In general, though, students responded much more favorably to the primary sources than to the secondary ones. They were especially stimulated by and interested in the more literary works, notably the Lusiads, the Popol Vuh, and Garcilaso de la Vega. The latter, in particular, drew virtually unanimous praise. The one- page papers (in response to a set question distributed one week ahead) required for the discussion sections were considered burdensome by many students, but most grudgingly acknowledged that they had been forced to improve their preparation. After talking the matter over with the teaching assistants, we have concluded that these assignments fulfilled their purpose, and we will probably include a similar feature when we teach the course again (and even more careful thought needs to be given to formulating the set questions). As we prepare to offer a new (and presumably improved) version of "1492: The Encounter of Two Worlds" for the fall of 1992, we have sought to remedy the flaws discussed above: fragmentation, superficiality, and Eurocentrism. Our basic decision, at this preliminary state, is to stay the course but trim the sails. The course will remain team-taught and multi- disciplinary, but will be refocused on history and anthropology, with a de-emphasis on literary approaches to the encounter. (We will probably keep the lectures on Columbus' journals, Guaman Poma and Garcilaso de la Vega.) This will create a somewhat more simplified structure which we hope will encourage a clearer, more profound multidisciplinary dialogue. We also plan to experiment with a format where two or more faculty engage in dialogue during a single class period. In addition we will now be able to set aside a large block at the beginning of the course--perhaps two weeks--for a more thorough discussion of pre-Columbian societies, allowing us to give the students: 1) a more even-handed treatment of indigenous/European interaction; and 2) a superior understanding of the encounter's impact on indigenous life--they will have a clearer picture of the "before" to go with the "after". This restructuring will probably entail a greater reliance on secondary materials (for "background") but course readings will continue to center around texts. Indeed, we intend this new framework to provide more time for in-class discussion and analysis of works such as the Popol Vuh. Another possible improvement would be to foster more direct professor/student contact. In this course, the teaching assistants led the discussion sections and did all the grading (plus much of the advising). Since we had two teaching assistants for fifty students, this was certainly feasible, and they did an excellent job and received enthusiastic reviews from the students. However, some of the faculty felt a bit isolated, bereft of the normal feedback that allows us to make "mid-course" corrections. When the course is next taught, Cope plans to take a discussion section and handle at least some of the grading. Perhaps this will also diminish any perception that the faculty are merely "guest lecturers." Finally, we felt we might do more to connect this early modern world to the present day. This might help to counteract the profoundly historical mentality with which even the brightest of present-day undergraduates tend to approach any historical phenomenon pre-dating the Beatles. A natural link - and one the students expressed considerable interest in - is the ongoing plight of indigenous peoples. One possibility would be to invite a Native American spokesperson to provide - in a literal sense - an indigenous perspective on the quincentenary. We may also put greater emphasis on ecological issues in the revised version of the course, perhaps utilizing Kirkpatrick Sale's controversial The Conquest of Paradise. Our discussion has inevitably concentrated on the negative aspects of the course, those areas that require modification and improvement. This has been a useful exercise for us (and we hope for others) but we may have created a false impression. We wish to emphasize that our experience with the course was extremely positive. It is axiomatic that the best way to learn a subject is to teach it; "1492: The Encounter of Two Worlds" was no exception. All of us were forced to look with a fresh eye on lectures that had perhaps grown stale, to do additional reading and thinking, and in general to deepen our understanding of a fascinating period of human history. The impact will carry over into our "normal" courses, with beneficial results. Furthermore, those who attended the lectures regularly gained insights into how other disciplines tackle the issues that interest us. On a less intellectual plane, the course also promoted the kinds of inter-departmental collegiality and cooperation that is all too rare on most campuses, including our own. If any of you have been contemplating a similar course - with either a team-taught or individual lectures format - we urge you to take the plunge. Like Columbus, you may find that you want to make the voyage again and again. NB: Those interested in more detail may wish to consult the attached course syllabus and final examination questions. SYLLABUS 1492: THE ENCOUNTER OF TWO WORLDS Course Description This course explores the impact of both Europe and the Americas events set off by the voyage of Columbus in 1492. We will focus on 1492-1580, the period in which the shape of the encounter was largely determined. No strictly historical approach can do justice to this complex series of events; we shall therefore use anthropology and literature as parallel approaches to the encounter. Course Schedule I. EUROPE AND THE AMERICAS BEFORE THE ENCOUNTER Introduction Jan. 24 Reading: Hans Konig, "Don't Celebrate 1492--Mourn It," New York Times, 14 August 1990. Louis Uchitelle, "In the Aztecs' Land, Muted Hurray for Columbus," NYT 6 September 1990. Jan. 29 Background: Mesoamerica Jan. 31 Background: The European World Reading: Eric Wolf, Sons of the Shaking Earth, entire. Feb. 6 The Technology of Exploration Feb. 7 Discovery: What It Meant to Europeans (with slides) Reading: Marvin Lunenfeld, 1492: Discovery, Invasion, Encounter, pp. 13-32. Luis Vaz de Camoes, The Lusiads, pp. 38-160. J. H. Parry, "The Problem of Discovery: A New World?" in Frederick B. Pike, ed., Latin American History: Select Problems, pp. 1-38 (Packet Item #1). Ursula Lamb, ed., A Navigator's Universe: the Libro de Cosmographia of 1538, pp. 159-209 (#2). II. TWO WORLDS MEET Feb. 12 Reading Primary Sources: The Case of Columbus (Guest lecturer: Benigno Sanchez-Eppler). Feb. 14 First Contacts: Describing the Other Title for Book Report Due Reading: Lunenfeld, pp. 53-60. 67-68, 86-91, 131-142, 245-254, 337-343. Columbus's First Letter of Discovery (#3). The Diario of Christopher Columbus, pp. 69-77 (#4). Feb. 19 No Class Feb. 21 Explaining Military Conquest in the Americas Reading: J. H. Parry, ed., New Iberian World, pp. 195- 218 (#5). Lunenfeld, pp. 185-198. Bernal Diaz del Castillo, The Conquest of New Spain, pp. 121-196, (#6). Feb. 26 Vision of the Vanquished: The Andean Region (with slides). Feb. 28 Vision of the Vanquished Mesoamerica (EM) Reading: Miguel Leon-Portilla, The Broken Spears, pp. 3-126, 145-149. Mar. 5 Cortes and Moctezuma (Guest lecturer: Beatriz Pastor). Mar. 7 Midterm Examination No Reading Film: Popol Vuh III. THE CONFRONTATION OF COSMOLOGIES Mar. 12 The Maya: Popol Vuh. Mar. 14 The Spanish Missionary Enterprise in Yucatan. Reading: Dennis Tedlock, trans., Popol Vuh, pp. 13- 160 (pp. 161-227 optional). Lunenfeld, pp. 201-211, 217-227. Inga Clendinnen, "Disciplining the Indians: Franciscan Ideology and Missionary Violence in Sixteenth-century Yucatan," Past and Present, 94 (1982): 27-48 (#7). Mar. 19 The Maya Response Book Report Due Mar. 21 Indigenous Women in the Andes (Guest Lecturer: Irene Silverblatt) Paper Topic Due Reading: James Lockhart and Enrique Otte. eds., Letters and People of the Spanish Indies, pp. 211-247. David N. Lorenzen, "Religious Change and Cultural Domination" (#8). Victoria Bricker, The Indian Christ, the Indian King (optional). Irene Silverblatt, "The Universe has turned inside out. . .There is no justice for us here: Andean Women under Spanish Rule," in Elanor Leacock, ed. Women and Colonization: Anthropological Perspectives, pp. 149-185. Mar. 26 Spring Break Mar. 28 IV. PERCEPTIONS OF THE COLONIAL EXPERIENCE Apr. 2 Transplanting Spanish Institutions: the Inquisition. Apr. 4 A Third Perspective: Africans in the New World. Reading: Lockhart and Otte, pp. 1-210, 247-255. Apr. 9 Native Reflections on the Colonial Experience: Garcilaso de la Vega. Apr. 11 Native Reflections on the Colonial Experience: Guaman Poma (with slides). Reading: Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala, El primer nueva coronica y buen gobierno (excerpts), trans. Rolena Adorno (#9)/ Garcilaso de la Vega, Royal Commentaries of the Incas, pp. 26-30. 40-52, 240-250, 594-608 (#10). V. THE LEGACY OF THE ENCOUNTER Apr. 16 Ecology Apr. 18 Demography (Guest Lecturer: Tom Whitmore) Reading: Alfred W. Crosby, Jr., The Columbian Exchange, entire Charles Gibson, ed., The Spanish Tradition in America, pp. 137-149 (#11). Ellen Messer, "The Hot and Cold in Mesoamerican Indigenous and Hispanicized Thought," Soc. Sci. Med., 25, no. 4: 339-346 (optional) (#12). B. Ortiz de Montellano, "Aztec Cannibalism: An Ecological Necessity?" Science, 200 (1978): 611-617 (optional) (#13). B. Ortiz de Montellano, "Empirical Aztec Medicine," Science, 188 (1975): 215-220 (optional) (#14). Apr. 23 Creation of a New Culture (with slides). Paper Due Apr. 25 Back to Columbus Reading: Lunenfeld, pp. 99-114. Mario Vargas Llosa, "Questions of Conquest: What Columbus Wrought, and What He Did Not," Harper's Dec. 1990: 45-53 (#15). May 9 Final Examination Course Requirements Students will be required to take a midterm exam and a final exam, write a 4-6 page book report and a 10-15 page paper, and participate in weekly discussion sections. For the discussion sections, students will be required to turn in at the beginning of the section, a one-page paper (in response to a question that will be distributed beforehand). No papers will be accepted after the section. The book report is due at the class hour of March 19. Book reports handed in after that time will be accepted up to one class later (i.e., class hour on March 21) with a penalty of one grade. No report will be accepted after the class hour on March 21. The paper is due at the class hour on April 23. Papers handed in after that time will be accepted up to one class later (i.e., class hour on April 25) with a penalty of one grade. No paper will be accepted after the class hour on April 25. Grade Weighing Discussion Sections Book Report Midterm Exam Paper Final Exam 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% LM 100: "1492: The Encounter of Two Worlds" Final Exam Study Guide Questions Three of these five questions will be asked on the final exam. 1. You are a representative of the Spanish Ministry of Culture and you have accepted an invitation to speak at Brown University on the topic "1492: Encounter of Two Worlds". Your Ministry has for several years been involved in encouraging and funding proposals in the U.S. and Latin America from groups that wish to observe the 500th anniversary of the voyage of Columbus. You arrive on the Brown campus and make your way to Sayles Hall where you are to give your lecture, which is entitled "1492: A Spanish Perspective". You find the lecture hall packed and a note of excitement in the air as you rise to speak. You begin by saying "For Spaniards, 1492 is a date we look back on with pride because. . ." Suddenly a student in the front row jumps up, turns to the audience and shouts "The only thing you have to be proud of is the massacre and enslavement of native Americans, the annihilation of their unique culture, the destruction of a unique environment and centuries of greedy exploitation by imperialist white men! After five hundred years the time has come to tell the truth!!! A large part of the audience cheers and stamps their feet. President Gregorian looks distinctly uncherubic and starts to intervene. But you motion him to stop and you reply: "Yes, it is true that 1492 had tragic consequences. Glory for the Europeans brought suffering for the Native Americans. But I assume that this is a university, not a lynch mob and that you are here to learn as well as to express moral indignation. After all, one of the less destructive legacies (if I may be permitted to suggest one) we Europeans brought to the New World was the concept of the university. If you are students, then may I assume that you are here because you are committed to striving to understand all the factors in one of history's most complex and important chapters. How can you hope to study 1492 unless you at least attempt to understand the world and the mind and the spirit of the Europeans who came to the Americas? To begin with the Spanish were . . . " Complete our embattled lecturer's speech. 2. Sources such as Popol Vuh (text and video), Broken Spears, Garcilaso de la Vega, and Guaman Poma, propose to give us an indigenous perception of the encounter. Do they give us an accurate or complete picture of native perspectives? Why or why not? 3. "It is easy to exaggerate the impact of the "spiritual conquest" in Spanish America. The religious culture in the Americas after contact was more indigenous than Spanish in character." Agree or disagree and defend your judgment. 4. By 1580, three generations have passed since the initial encounter. Who are the Indians of 1580 from Spanish and indigenous perspectives? 5. Assess the human consequences of 1492 for Indians and Europeans with reference to three of the following: demography, diet, language and economy.