Sor Juana

I thoroughly enjoyed watching the depiction of Sor Juana this week in class in I, the Worst of All. Visualizing the time period can be difficult, so seeing someone’s take via film was quite interesting. Mostly due to my upbringing in the 21st century, I can have a biased viewpoint when discussing the women, in particular, during past times. When I say biased I mean that I always can’t imagine how women just accepted their roles in society without the options as most men did, but then again, I need to work on my historical viewpoint. Regardless, Sor Juana seemed to represent the “feminist” woman of the time, whether she meant to or not, by stepping outside the norm as much as possible with her love of knowledge and intelligence. Yes, she was a part of the church, one of the few choices women had in life during this time, the other being marriage, but even so , she utilized this position to her advantage. Clearly, the church was a place where women could get an education, and I would have to imagine I would have chosen the life of a nun if born during such times, as well. 

I found it difficult to accept that Sor Juana was such a threat to the church. I understand that her love of learning meant discussing theology possibly considered heretical to the church, but then again, I cannot imagine that men in other monasteries were not engaging in the same type of reading. It seems that Sor Juana in particular was just dealing with an Archbishop who was in particular not fond of women in general. Were they threatening to him?

It does seem that Sor Juana was a poineer for women’s rights although she probably had no intention of calling it that. It was very interesting to see nuns portrayed in more actual behavior as opposed to the idealized notions I think we tend to hear/read more about. They did have passions and feelings!

In regards to sexuality, there was definitely a portrayel of sexual tension between Sor Juana and the Vicereine. It seemed that the Vicereine, as portrayed in the film, had more intention than just a friendship with Sor Juana. Overall, though, I thought this depiction was a nice reflection of Sor Juana and her contributions to gaining equal status under such a patriarchical system.

Marina’s 9 Confessions

Obviously this post concerns the case we talked about in class, but moreso through the actual primary document itself. I really had a difficult time reading this. Not because it was uninteresting, but because I cannot imagine what this must have been like for Marina. Basically, the Inquisition was asking all of these open-ended questions to which Marina was supposed to confess as to why they had her in custody. This seems so time-consuming on the Inquisition’s part, in my opinion. I think you could get anyone to say alot of different things about why they were arrested if they did not know the actual reason! I have to imagine Marina’s case was not the only instance of this happening either.

I think her references to spiritual encounters with Jesus, hell and being in purgatory were most likely dreams or fantasies that she had previously had, and she probably thought that someone knew about them, other than herself, so this could have possibly been a reason for her arrest in her mind. After going through nine confession sessions, of course Marina would be coming up with the most bizarre accounts of her imagination in order to explain the possible reason for her questioning. It almost seems that if you were arrested by the Inquisition, you had no hope for getting out without some sort of pentalty due to the “guilty until proven innocent” mentality that is backwards from today. Also, like Marina, people who were held for quite some time in cells would probably come up with some crazy things about their personal past in order to find some closure to what the Inquisition was looking for so they could be freed. I think I could go a little nuts being locked up in a cell myself. You could probably get anyone to say anything if they knew that confessing something would atleast free them from imprisonment.

Again, this just seems too time-consuming for the Inquisition. You would think that they would just tell people what they were accused of and go from there, but I guess the point was that people would tell the truth, and even confess to other “crimes” without knowing the actual, real reason of their first arrest.

Reading cases like this makes me glad for our justice system of today, that’s for sure! Although, because of this questionning style, it has given us very detailed accounts of actual behaviors of people during colonial times. This is probably the only positive coming from such cases.

“Burn Her!”

I just couldn’t get over this quote from Monty Python’s movie, and I figured it was a good enough heading to grab some attention. Regardless, I enjoyed our discussion this past week about witches and superstitions in colonial Latin America. I have to admit that I came into the lecture thinking that the Spanish treated the “witches” as colonial Americans did, the infamous Salem trials in particular, but was surprised to see some major differences.

Ruth Behar’s article does perhaps the best in articulating that women who were thought to be witches were not really taken seriously. I find this interesting that the Church and Inquisition found witchcraft just a sign of “ignorance” but yet had such an overwhelming power over sexual practices of people during this time. Why did I bring in sexuality, though? Because as Behar expresses, women used witchcraft as a source of power, mostly through sexual relationships. So, the church was really concerned with how people were engaging and talking about sex, but yet seemed to overlook “witches” who were using “ligatures”, as Behar mentions, in which women tried to make husbands impotent. I found this a disconnect.

Also, Behar points out that women who were using sorcery in colonial Spain were mostly unmarried, young women or widows.  This was different that in colonial America and Europe. What struck me most though was that the idea of witchcraft among these women was in reality a means to some sort of power. As we have really elaborated on, women were much more subordinate than men in colonial Spain. The gender roles and norms were typical as women were considered more passive and domestic workers, while men were much more aggressive, to display masculinity of course, and in the public sphere in many more cases. Thus, as Ruth Behar’s article articulates, witchcraft for women was not only a means of power over their husbands, but served as a community for them combining women of all classes.

Behar argues that the Inquisition, by ignoring withcraft as ignorance over heresy, devalued the “power” that women were gaining by using sorcery and magic. I had not given this connection a though before, but I find this point of view convincing in that, even though women were probably causing a scare on small, local levels of superstition, because it was not given much emphasis or attention, it was as if women were so emersed in a patriarchical society that even succumbing to magic and the devil, on some extreme cases, didn’t cause for much attention.

Homosexuality and Cross-Dressing

I chose to focus this blog on the article by Laura A. Lewis titled “From Sodomy to Superstitution: The Active Pathic and Bodily Transgressions in New Spain.” Homosexuality and our recent discussions of the cases presented by Dr. Black in class have been quite interesting to me, and so I really wanted to read more about similar accounts, hence my focus on Lewis. Although Lewis dove into many topics, I found myself drawn to the female cross-dressing cases. According to Lewis, male homosexuality was punishable  by death, but the stereotypical comparison to “sodomites” as “passive” or “acting like women” and even dressing like one were not in and of themselves punishable by death. However, I couldn’t help but notice how much male homosexuality was condemned just by it being an act of feminization of men. Of course, that would be looked down upon for a man to have female characteristics, and I think we all can agree that this idea was consistent with colonial times, as women were usually subordinate.

On the other hand, Lewis provides accounts of females who dressed as men.  She also notes a difference here in that females who dressed and acted like men were not immediately thought of as homosexual, unlike men who dressed as women. She goes on to say that this goes back to females being subordinate, so to become more like a man, although deviating from gender norms, a woman wasn’t looked down upon taking up male characteristics. I think that these notions are still around today! I would argue that women have much more fluidity when it comes to dressing more masculine or taking up masculine characteristics/interests. The question for me is, although one could argue that this is still because feminine qualities are subordinate to masculine ones, isn’t the gap between acting more feminine or masculine less deviant than colonial Spain? I would think so, however, as a female, I’m still pretty confident that I could get away with dressing more masculine, then let’s say, my brother dressing feminine. These gender roles of dress and their links to homosexuality seem to have some deep historical roots that we are learning from Lewis’ and others case studies.

Lewis also mentions the church attire, which consisted of capes and cloaks, etc. This style of dress seems much more androgynous, although there were distinctions between male and female. I find this interesting considering that the church was so strict and very concerned with sexual practices and gender roles among society, even down to dress. Regardless, I can say with confidence that I am glad to be a part of a time where fluidity among sexual preferences and practices is much less condemned than previous ones. I can’t imagine the fear instilled in those by the church who were conducting these acts, in particular homosexual ones, considering their very lives were at stake.

Lavrin, Courtship and the Church

I found our discussions concerning sexuality and the church this past week some of the most interesting of the semester. Maybe it’s because the church still plays some sort of role in determining sexual behavior, or atleast has historical roots in what society deems as acceptable or not. However, I am focusing on Lavrin’s article concerning sexuality in colonial Mexico because it seemed to really develop deeper into the discussions we had from class this past week, and I also noted some findings that really stuck out.

First of all, courtship really stood out during this time period! Lavrin dives into how men and women sexual relations were understood through courting practices.  Men went to great lengths to “woo” ,as Lavrin put it, their woman by gift-giving and verbal promises to a future of marriage. Interestingly, these courtships seemed to last for some time, and premarital sex definitely occurred, especially if the future promise of marriage was apparent. It’s as if even though actual marriage had yet to occur, the promise of it was enough justification for sex. Here again, the protection of female chastity emerged in courtships, as Lavrin really emphasizes how women somehow made themselves more attractive by turning down sexual practices until marriage. For men, not acting on or suggesting any sexual practices helped women trust that they sought her hand in marriage during a courtship, not simply just for lust. Regardless, these courtships seem very indicative of this time period. In fact, as I was reading about it, I wondered whatever happened to it?

It is clear that the church had alot to say about sexual practices, even though actual human behavior wasn’t as ideal. Today, however, courting or “dating” seems to be a lost art. Is this because the church has less “control” over personal relationships between men and women, or could it be because social interaction in relationships have just changed? Not that I want the church to be so strict as to force a reappearance of courting, but sometimes I think the dating life today would be nice with it. People are either “going out” or “not”….but they’re actually “not going anywhere”! I find this sort of humorous.

The other interesting bit that I felt Lavrin developed upon was again the strict ruling of the church, through mostly confessionals over sexual practice. Even dreaming or thinking about sex was a sin! I can only imagine the constant anxiety of waking up in the morning after some sexual dream wondering if a confession would have to occur to keep the soul saved. These poor people couldn’t control every biological sense of themselves! The church had alot to say about human behavior, even innate behavior, so it’s not as surprising that actual practices deviated from these unrealistic “ideal” notions. I think the church had good intentions of the sanctity of marriage and the sinfulness of adultery, incest, etc. However, some extremes seemed to infringe upon a person’s own humanity. Here I go again being biased and not thinking about this on a contextual level for the time period….

Let me recap, Lavrin’s article helped me understand how the tension between the church and human sexuality played out during the colonial period. I also have a new wish of the revival of courtship, but am not getting my hopes up!

Seed: Transforming Marriages

First off, I was blown away by the depth that Seed went into to portray this transformation of marriage in Spanish society. She studied over 16,000 cases if you didn’t remember this from our class discussion, and this makes her argument quite compelling! I think you have to be pretty passionate about something to put such effort into things, but regardless, this book contextualizes terms in a historical manner and uses anecdotes that really emphasize the topic of marriage through the almost 300 years Seed covers!

Clearly, the book is split into chronological arrangement, beginning with early 16th century Spain and bringing readers through up to the 19th century. Context-wise it was very interesting to read about how marriage was considered a sacrament in early Spain and evolved into “love” over the years. What is really interesting was when marriage was considered a sacrament, the Catholic Church  seemed to have much more authority and control over marriages and what it consisted of between men and women. So, if a child was not permitted marriage by his or her parents, he or she could protest to the church, permitting more autonomy to choice of marriage. However, as marriage shifted towards love, this was also when property and land-ownership was increasingly becoming important, thus, the Catholic Church was still present, but parents seemed to have much more authority and control due to the role that property played into marriages. Seed really talks about the authority of fathers and how social status through land ownership allowed the family to have more sayso in a child’s marriage because this directly affected the inheritances of families.

Love was not the only evolving aspect, as Seed discusses, but as her title suggests, “honor” changed too. Early on, and we even discussed this in class on numerous occasions, female chastity and male virility were to be honored and protected in early Spain, albeit on a prescriptive level as we all know that actual practices of people were not as “ideal” as the church would like. (I don’t think times have changed much in our “ideals” v. practices, do you?) But back to the main point, honor shifted more towards social status and again, property ownership. Can we all see an overwhelming theme? Capitalism and land ownership really changed society, as we originally saw when the Spanish took over Indigenous and African lifestyle.

Seed’s book  portrays exceptionally well how honor shifted towards social status and patriarchy became much stronger, and marriages during this time reflected this transformation. In our small groups on Thursday, my group happened to talk about what life must have been for children during this time, and I can’t say that I’m too upset I wasn’t around to experience not being able to choose a marriage partner based on inheritance and property ownership. Of course, then, for women especially, I guess marriage or entering the Church was your only route to having a life/social status, so maybe being married off to enhance your family’s status wasn’t all that bad. I’m a little biased, as we can tell….Seed’s book, nonetheless, was eye-opening, and 16,000 cases for reference sure makes it convincing.

What’s in a name?

I am going to focus on the chapter in Indian Women in Early Mexico concerning the naming of Nahua women postconquest. It seems thematic that naming has been quite indicative of the Spanish conquest, not only during the Indigenous conquest we first learned about, but in the African slave trade that we discussed a week ago. As soon as the slaves arrived to the Americas, thier names were changed. And how were they changed? To something “Christian” related. So, of course, the Nahua men and women postconquest really express this change due to Spanish invasion, as they too take on Christain names. Interestingly so, as the article really points out, Nahua naming patterns were based more on order of childbirth, with no sense of surname, although male names were more unique than female names. Identity wasn’t at this point as much in a name as it was on kinship, another major theme we really discussed in class concerning Indigenous culture. After the Spanish arrived, however, Christian names were the dominant form found in Nahua men and women, except this time, patron saints were the names of choice, and surnames were also more popular. What does this point to? The fact that private property, a Spanish/European way of life, had infiltrated native culture, and in many ways taken over it, the idea of who was to own land or inherit it became a concern, thus, leading to the importance of naming.

It’s interesting how again there is such a difference between the Indiginous culture and focus on kinship versus European/Spanish/American. It seems that alot of effort went into upholding the church and its ideals, even down to using saints’ names for identity, but the very cultures that it dominated seemed to actually act out a much more Christian, kinship community. Also, this shift to naming as a clear identity for people really reflects the importance of the family over the community. With more focus on inheritance patterns due to land ownership, it was important to be identified throughout one’s family, and not necessarily through the outside community.

The Spanish clearly had a looming power dynamic, with its ability to uproot these cultures and change their ways of life even down to naming patterns. Also, it feels as if all of this always goes back to the Catholic church and Spain’s significant tie to the upholding of its values. I could even argue that the church is the sole reason that these conquests occurred; hence, when discussing power and politics, even gender roles, you cannot overlook how important the church’s role is! Again, though, these seemingly simple changes, like in naming patterns indicate so much more than we really think. Identities and roles were changing, too…..

Has masculinity really changed?

After learning about the Indigenous and African communities and their own gender relations that were severely altered after the Spanish invasions, it was actually nice to learn about the other side of the coin, the Spaniards themselves. To actually read and learn a little about the Spaniards own ideas of gender and its roles would possibly help explain to me the shifts that were seen as Indigenous and African communities’ own gender relations were completely uprooted. I was expecting to see this major patriachical system among the Spanish due to the seemingly lack of women’s rights among these uprooted communities, even though both men and women from these communities basically had no rights, but was surprised to read about the property and legal rights of women in Spain! Who would have known? But, as easy as it would be for me to discuss women’s roles and rights (it’s clearly a favorite theme of mine), I’d like to focus on the men.

In saying that, if anyone hasn’t read Edward Behrend-Martinez’s article about manhood and the male body, then do it! This was so interesting, and I think that for someone like me, for instance, it’s always interesting to see how the male body is discussed and objectified since normally we focus on women. Thus, I was very enthuised with what was in store. I think there are many standards that men have to uphold or reach in order to express “masculinity” that are equal to women expressing “femininity,” allthough in different forms. Martinez really revealed how Spain upheld what it meant to be a man, and deviating from this norm had significant consequences. I was utterly blown away about men having to prove their sexuality by mere physical genitalia, and at the same time, was impressed with the accounts of many women getting by living their lives as men by acting like a “man” should even though they obviously lacked the correct genitalia. Clearly, not being able to perform sexually was pertinent to being a Spanish man, and in fact, it was important in solidifying marriage through actual intercourse.

Martinez also pointed out castration that existed in this culture, and how it was used alot of time to keep men in the choir! Of course, if a man was castrated then, their manhood in the eyes of Spain was nonexistent, so I did not really understand why young boys were castrated to the extent of retaining a good voice if so much of their future lives through manhood was at stake. However, all of these insights that Martinez revealed really begged the question as to how we define manhood today and whether or not many differences are apparent.

The Spanish saw manhood in physicality through muscularity, deep voices, chest hair, and of course the penis, if not being the major signifier of manhood. Sometimes I think that being a “man” in our own culture today hasn’t really changed much. I mean, yes, I do believe that we have more gender fluidity, for more women than men, but still men have a little more access I would hope to notions of gender than Spanish men did. Still, though, doesn’t this macho masculinity still exist somewhat in our own culture? I think because we still have this ultimate masculinity that men are somehow supposed to express really suppresses men’s ability to have fluidity in gender, while women, on the other hand, due to being feminine (somehow less than being masculine) have much more gender fluidity. I feel a little everywhere with this blog, but Martinez highlighted some interesting points about masculinity, and that can sometimes go unsaid when discussing gender and its roles.

“Christian” Renaming and Slavery

For this post, I feel like relying mostly on Thorton’s article because I learned so much while reading it. I know we’ve all heard that slavery has been around in all cultures, not just America, but this article really developed upon this and explained that yes, it’s true, slavery was in Africa and has always been around, but it was expressed differently when the Europeans arrived–this was the kicker.

In our group discussions in class this past week, my group talked mostly about how slaves in Africa were used primarily as a source of investment or wealth. Before the slave trade by the Portuguese began, private ownership was  basically nonexistent to African society, just as it was among the Incas. I believe the kings sort of owned the land, and people lived and worked among it, so owning a slave was more of an investment, and these slaves were treated as such.

It’s almost becoming thematic in this class that private ownership of land has been the cause for so much shift in society, and more specifically, gender relations. This has been the same when discussing African societies. Clearly, slavery has been around, but when the Portuguese instituted a different definition of ownership (private land), we begin to see the slavery that took the dominant form here in America, one of severe punishment and coercion of African Americans. Our group also really talked about how this slave trade significantly affected the gender roles and culture at large among the Africans, as it did to the Indigenous, as well. Thornton really expresses how as many African males entered the slave trade, the “sexual division of labor” was extremely affected. What really struck me, though, was not only including those women who were left behind but those that did enter the slave trade, and how their identities seemed even more unimportant to the Europeans than the male slaves. I know that not much status was at stake just by mere fact of being a slave in general, but as our group mentioned, many written records of slaves by the Portuguese left women unnamed, or simply just referred to them as slave women or girls. I really believe that this just speaks to the larger context of how Europeans at this time did not acknowledge women in political and economical realms even among their own. I’m anxious to learn this next week about European gender relations, so I’ll have a better grasp of this.

I also find it really interesting how, as even seen in the Amistad clip, the Europeans were renaming the slaves as they got off ship. These names really reflected the Christian values of the Europeans and basically stripped the slaves of their previous heritage and identity. I just find it really odd that this could possibly have been done in a “Christain” sense. These Europeans were renaming the slaves that were brutally treated, and somehow miraculously survived the Middle Passage, with Christian names! Did they really believe that this was “Christian”?!? I guess people have used the Bible to justify some rather horrible events throughout all of history. Sort of makes me wonder what they’ll say about our generation one day….

Hardwork and Religion

Even just glancing through the speeches, anyone would notice how important religion is to these nobles. It is clear that the Spanish have had a significant effect on the Nahuatl with almost every other word being some sort of reference or thankful statement to God. Probably because I am not accustomed to this sort of reverence in writing today, the writings seemed overly emphasized with references to God and His blessings. I think we all can agree that these primary sources highlight the religious fervor in Nahuatl society, but as the introduction mentioned, these writings are “idealized.” 

I read through some of the speeches that focused on child behavior and what was to be expected of them. These noble writers seemed to promote that the children of the newer generations were not as respectful and prone to “misdeeds” than children of previous times. I was sort of laughing to myself a little after reading this, because I would like to think that my own grandparents would probably write about how times have changed the current generation as well. But back to the topic….looking at these primary sources with a more focused perspective, I believe that we as readers can also see just how roles were divided and what was expected behavior towards others. Although idealized, the nobles write in a respectful manner with every greeting started with a courteous remark in a religious fashion. 

I really liked the speech about children and what was expected of them, as I mentioned earlier. I found it especially interesting in the speech the older man gave about a boy’s roles being that one should rise early and work. The work ethic of the Nahuatl is really emphasized even at very young ages. Idleness is not revered, and people seemed to always have chores, although separate for boys and girls, that were important to the community as a whole.

The values are definitely clear: hard work and religion are central, or atleast an idealized level to try and achieve for the Nahuatl. Shifting gears a little, though, I couldn’t ignore the final source: the murder entry. Of course, the murder of the wife was written as justifiable because she had committed adultery. There was no sense of remorse for this act by the husband, indicating how adultery was probably more “sinful” than even murder. I wish there was an entry of a woman dealing with a husband who had committed adultery to compare to see what differences between women and men’s roles in a marriage consisted of. Maybe adultery was only discussed in terms of the wife….however, this speech really expressed how adultery was looked down upon.