If Felipe II had hired Juan Miguel Zunzunegui as a press chief, the Black Legend spread by England and the Netherlands against the Hispanic Monarchy would have been deactivated in no time, and Spain would be more associated with a Christmas ad than with the Inquisition, the abuses in the Americas, or the terror that the Duke of Alba inspired in Flanders. This 49-year-old Mexican historian, who has thousands of fans on the internet, is very critical even of Bartolomé de las Casas, the Dominican friar who denounced the abuses in the early days of the American epic, whom he describes as a "narcissistic liar." We spoke with him during his visit to Madrid. His message is clear: the Spanish empire worked, it was more humane with its subjects than the colonies of its geopolitical rivals, and it was a whole, that is, a Spain that we do not know today, neither here nor there.
QUESTION. At school, my textbook talked about the Discovery and Conquest of America and then briefly mentioned the loss of the colonies. Nothing was said about the 300 years in between.
ANSWER. In Mexico, the same thing happens. These three centuries are not about an empire that Spain had in America, but about a country that started in the Pyrenees and ended at the Strait of Magellan. Populated by Spaniards. "Only Spaniards?" Because Quechuas, Aymaras, Mayas... All had the status of subjects of the Crown. A country where all Spaniards were equal. It is important to consider that Queen Isabella made it clear that she wanted all her subjects to be taken care of. The term Empire is to understand that it was not a Spain in Europe that had colonies like other countries, but a Spain on both sides of the ocean.
Q. How was this Spain built?
A. The Hispanic America has much of Spain and much of the indigenous people. I say something very controversial: Spain is the fatherland and America is the motherland. It is a very broad world. Behind Hernán Cortés is the humanist University, the Renaissance, Judeo-Christianity, the Greco-Roman world. Just as behind Moctezuma is everything that is Mesoamerica. In each place, the Spanish seed germinates in a different way because the indigenous cultures it encompasses are very different. The world's greatest power was a whole, complete Spain. To dominate a continent, to control the Atlantic and Pacific, to dominate the Manila galleon for 250 years, which was the basis of the world economy and the first globalization. Together we were an empire, not an unfortunate country that had enslaved colonies.
Q. Why do you consider this model much better than that of other European empires?
A. If you study the colonies of France, Portugal, or England, you realize that all these countries always did the same thing: they took over the coasts, built large ports, plundered resources, transported them by ship to the metropolis, and forgot about the interior. Spain did not. In Mexico, there is no naval culture, and that is because Spain moved inland, where it built cities. The best way to understand this is to look at the cathedrals, like the one in Mexico City or Puebla. You only build a work that requires so much time and effort if you consider that place your own land. Let me give you a current example. If you buy an apartment to rent out, you don't spend much money on decoration; that effort is for your own home. Well, Spain built the best temples and altarpieces in America, not in Spain. And the Spaniards didn't build them alone. In 1560 Mexico, there were only 30,000 Spaniards, while the indigenous people were five million. Together, they built aqueducts, universities, and temples. In the churches, there are frescoes and indigenous art because the indigenous people built them. This was not done by force or by a people who felt conquered.
Q. You believe that in Mexico history is studied with resentment and in Spain with guilt. Why do you think this is? Is it perhaps a self-esteem issue?
A. It's curious how we deny each other when we have the same complexes. In Mexico, we like to reject the Spanish as much as in Spain.
Q. Why are you so against apologies for the past?
A. You can't apologize if what you did was build and create. I always say that when politics incites hatred, what should be done is to create more student scholarships. If you bring a Mexican to Spain, they will see that Seville is just like Mexico. If you go to Cadiz, Extremadura, to the entire southern part of the peninsula. People would see that this is Cartagena in Colombia, Guanajuato, or Zacatecas. The Spaniard who thinks they did horrible things in America does so out of ignorance. Go to America and see it. See the hospitals, universities, schools, culture, folklore...
Q. Frustrations always need an enemy.
A. Of course, if from America it is said how miserable the Spaniards are, how they stole our future, while in Spain it is argued that the Spaniards are the worst of humanity because they destroyed a continent that was like Plato's Atlantis, this is a problem. Let me give you an example: in the Casa de América in Madrid, a wonderful building, there is a room called Simón Bolívar. He is honored in every Spanish city when he was the one who destroyed America. It makes sense to honor him in Hispanic American countries or even in the United States, but not here, because he destroyed the empire, which I'm not saying should return, but I do defend that it was not as horrible as it is portrayed.
Q. Many of the criticisms against the Spanish presence come from the current situation in Spanish America, compared to that colonized by Anglo-Saxons.
A. It is very easy to fall into that deception. In Mexico, it is often said that if Spain had done things right, we wouldn't be so poor now. Well, it must be known that in 1810 Mexico was the center of the world. Mexico City was much more prosperous than Madrid. Mexican silver was the universal currency. How many Hispanic American countries have done well in the 200 years of independence? Virtually none. Thinking that the problems we have are Spain's fault and not our own terrible decisions is an argument for seven-year-olds.
Q. You are very critical of Anglo-Saxon colonialism.
A. First, the prosperity attributed to Anglo-Saxon countries is only partly true. Look at India, Burma, and half of Africa they occupied. But let's talk about the wealthy countries: the United States, Canada, and Australia. How did their prosperity start? By killing the locals. And that is something the Spaniards should never forget. In the famous U.S. Declaration of Independence, it says that humans are free and have equal rights. The problem is that for them, humans are only white, Anglo-Saxon, and Protestant. In contrast, in Spanish America, all its inhabitants have been considered people for two centuries, where all are considered children of God and vassals of the Crown. In the 16th century, Juan de Sessa, a black man from Ethiopia, was the professor of the Grammar Chair at the University of Granada. A black professor four centuries before blacks in the U.S. were allowed to study at the university! That is more important than prosperity.
Q. You promote these virtues, but there are many other academics in Mexico and Spain who argue that there was an invasion in America and that it was very violent. Do you argue a lot with your colleagues?
A. In Mexico, I don't talk much with them. If you dedicate yourself to intellectual pursuits, you most likely depend on a government, a politician, and then your ideas have an owner. I love it when they use the word invasion. An invasion is what Spain tried to do when it attacked England in 1588 by sending a fleet of 200 ships, 35,000 men... However, Spain from the Caribbean wanted to invade the American continent and did so with 400 sailors, not even soldiers, who were settlers from Cuba. It doesn't make sense. If you invade a territory, you need significant resources to maintain the occupation. One piece of evidence that dismantles the invasion theory is that there were no armies in the viceroyalties...
Q. I understand that there would be a military presence to repel invasions or pirate attacks.
A. The army to defend against the English was created with the Bourbons. Why so late? Because in the viceroyalty, no one felt conquered or invaded. Consider that in New Spain, the lingua franca was not Spanish but Nahuatl. Who speaks the language of the people they conquer? The Spaniards created grammars of Nahuatl, Maya, and Quechua. The English never created a grammar of Hindi.
Q. What is the reason for this greater humanism of the Spanish empire?It cannot be because of Catholicism, as France and Portugal were also Catholic.
A. I believe Spain acted the way it did because it is Spain. Spaniards have no trouble mixing with other peoples. They are a mix of Iberian, Celtic, Roman, Greek, Jewish, Visigoth, and Arab. The Spanish language has words of very different origins, just like Spanish in America includes indigenous vocabulary... Another important circumstance, I believe, was the lack of women. The vast majority of those who embarked for America were men, and upon arrival, they had relationships with indigenous women, whom they baptized and took as wives.
Q. You deny that this was a widespread violation of women.
A. If it had happened that way, those women would not have been baptized, something very serious for a Christian at the time, and then married. That and creating a grammar for their language. Hernán Cortés' first son is named Martín Cortés Malintzin. His father names him Martín after his grandfather, whom he had on an altar, gives him his last name and that of the mother. He even sends an embassy to the pope to legitimize him. Who would do that if they were racist?