Emily's Post

Gutierrez presents an account of the Pueblo Indian Revolt founded on declarations from both Indians and Spanish leadership, which he concludes with the assessment that if the Spanish had been more tolerant of the Natives culture and religious beliefs and had treated them more humanely then likely the Indians would not have revolted on Santa Fe and the surrounding communities. Can this conclusion justifiably be drawn or is he extrapolating with his evidence? While it is a logical conclusion for us, can his interpretation of the events and interviews being considered the truest history? Or is it equally as likely that the Indians would have revolted against the Spanish if they were not treated harshly and did not have their culture imposed upon? Additionally, is Gutierrez exaggerating the Spaniards ignorance of their treatment of the Indians? While they likely did believe themselves to be the vessels of truth, did the Franciscans really conclude that "the only thing they were guilty of was selfless love for the Indians" (427)? Or did they experience some sort of regret or guilt for their treatment of the Indians? Would this be more obvious if Gutierrez had more sources from the Spaniards at the time beyond that of Otermin?