Argument Against Portuguese New World involvement

Men Folly The work of Restall covers a lot of ground when it comes to classic literature. One of the approaches and treatments that is common in such literature is the concept of "great men." Of course, the topic is a bit silly and under-informed nowadays. This brief essay will cover why precisely this is the case and it will use Restall's work in Seven Myths as the main sources of analysis to make that case.

While the use of "great men" in classic literature is to be expected and customary, an obvious modern case can and should be made against the general concept and how what supposedly made men like Cortes and Columbus "great" was actually regular and normal behavior for the time and the positions of power that those "great men" held. Analysis Restall makes prescient and honest points about men like Columbus and Cortes.

Beyond the fact that many people of that time are still treated as heroes and worthy of the holidays that are assigned in their honor (e.g. Columbus), what they actually did was not all that abnormal and what they did was not all that different than what others in similar positions made.

Indeed, Columbus is hailed as being the one that "discovered" the Americas even though there is clear evidence that there were aborigine peoples in the Caribbean and Americas upon his arrival and what he did in response to this discovery was commissioned and requested by the crown that sent him. Also mentioned by Restall is the broader overall work of Spain and Portugual. Two other names that come up when speaking of the great men myth are Cortes and Pizarro.

Of course, Cortes was a conquistador from Spain that was leading the expedition that eventually led to the fall of the Aztec empire. Francisco Pizarro, on the other hand, was similar in that he led the similar effort that led to the fall of the Incas. In the case of all three men, they were indeed among the first to do what they did at the level of what was completed. However, to suggest that their behavior was unexpected or undesirable would be incorrect.

At the same time, to suggest that what they did was anything "exceptional" for that day and time is also not the case. As history has proven, at that time and since, it was a common practice of the Spanish and the Portuguese (not to mention the British and the French) to conquer all of the people and lands of the Earth so as to bring them under control of their commissioning country and/or crown (Restall, 2003).

As for specific words and phrases that Restall uses, there are many. Indeed, the mission and commission of the men above was to conquer and control. Restall quotes Francisco Lopez de Gomara as saying "the Conquest of Mexico and the conversion of the peoples of New Spain can and should be included with the histories of the world, not only because it was well done but because it was very great" (Restall, 2003, p. 1).

The "great" quip notwithstanding, this is an accurate and blunt depiction of what the intent was when it came to Spain and empires like it, as mentioned before. Also as noted earlier, Columbus is held as being "great" due to his discovery of the Americas. Further, it is in the top two events of all-time history in the eyes of many, the other being the discovery of the printing press.

This view of the discovery event as being great persisted more than two centuries later in full form as Abbe Reynal said similar things in 1770 and then again with Adam Smith about six years later (Restall, 2003, p. 2). While history clearly treats these events and people in one way, Restall uses the word "facile" to describe their exploits and behavior (Restall, 2003, p. 4).

The main reason behind this is stated when Restall goes out his way to assert that his statement should not be construed to mean that the events should be ignored or minimized. Rather, he asserts that the events of that day were part of wider social change initiatives and this has to be kept in mind when assessing the same. Further, there were many more people of all stripes that were involved in what unfolded in the Americas via the work of Columbus, Pizarro and Cortes.

For example, one cannot ignore or disregard the involvement and participation (often coerced) of the Africans and Native Americans that were present in the area. The picture is skewed so much, in the words of Restall, that people like Columbus should see the art and accounts of that day as allegory rather than as pure historical gems to be fawned over and treasured (Restall, 2003, p. 6).

One example cited by Restall is the assertion of Felipe Fernanded-Armesto when he calls Columbus' knowledge of the world being a sphere as "exception." Indeed, Fernandez-Armesto refers to this idea as the "infamous canard" (Restall, 2003, p. 6). Beyond that, it is equally folly to just think of the Spanish when it comes to the early Americas. Indeed, the Portuguese were very active as well, even if the Spanish (and other Europeans.