New Mexico in Focus; 1015; Oñate Special

A bitter fight over the appropriate historical place for one man over shadows New Mexico's 400th year anniversary history cannot be changed but is reconciliation possible we explore that question next on in focus Hello and welcome to in focus, Amar Sichapa. It looks like this year's

Guatrasentario anniversary is going to pass without the construction of a memorial honoring the leader of the first Spanish settlement. For months, various factions have been fighting for and against memorializing Don Juan de Oñate, leader of that first group of colonists and first governor of New Mexico. Supporters, including descendants of families who came in that first group, want to honor him with a monument. Opponents say the brutality he exercised on the Aquama Indians makes him unworthy. What kind of man was Don Juan de Oñate? Does he deserve to be honored with a monument? And in this anniversary year is their hope of reconciliation. In a moment three historians will help shed some light on some of these issues but first we have this background report. In 1558, a wealthy minor from Sacatecas, New Spain set out with wagons, cattle and 400

civilians and soldiers to colonize the territory of New Mexico for Spain. When he landed with an advanced party at the banks of the Rio Grande, just outside of Espanola, he irrevocably shaped the history of New Mexico and the Southwest by introducing horses, cattle, sheep, new crops, guns, European law and a Christian God. Few realize though that when Don Juan de Oñate made its trek through New Mexico, this land was populated by ten different peoples. Throughout the dozens of pueblos scattered principally along the Rio Grande, seven different languages were spoken and almost all practiced uniquely different traditions. Don Juan de Oñate and his soldiers committed what many consider to be war crimes against the native population, primarily for his deeds at Aquama. Two battles and punishments

that ranged from slavery for women and children to amputation of a foot for each of twenty-four adult men. Oñate has been called a killer, a butcher and a savage. Oñate was one of at least eight people who bid on the job. So the first thing that can be concluded from all this is, had Oñate not been here, somebody else would have. Would they have been better than Oñate or worse, who knows? But New Mexico would have been settled one way or the other. So we can't revise history and say, well, Oñate is the fault of everything and only him because somebody else would have done the same thing, maybe not with the same details. For Juan de Oñate and his soldiers, Aquama Pueblo held the key to the survival of a Spanish colony, destroying the fortress-like village would stand as a symbol of the strength of Spanish rule in the New Lands and ease the way for Oñate's Spanish colony. We have to understand, the Native Americans had been fighting before the Spanish came.

The spashting come here and find a bunch of whistles. They've been fighting each other. The Navajos had been raiding before the Spanish came here. Aquama was up on that mesa for a reason. The reason is defense. Apparently, it was a good defense. They felt invincible up there. They just couldn't believe that anybody could get them up there. They miscalculated on that one because here was a people who had come here, who, if you've been to Spain, every castle is built on the mesa. They've laid siege to a lot of those in their history and then they've been through the mixed-on wars in Mexico, which were all battles and basically fighting defenders on mesa. So this was not new to the people here. And it resulted, of course, in a severe defeat for Aquama. But Oñate's actions in Aquama became his downfall, leading to his conviction and banishment from New Mexico. Native Americans didn't bring him to justice. The English didn't bring him to justice. The United States didn't bring him to justice. He's people brought him

to justice. And he was banned for life from New Mexico, which was a major affront to him as so far as his military record. As he saw it, his honor, probably a fate worsen death in some ways. He spent the rest of his life kind of exonerating himself. Four hundred years later, Oñate's mission remains in open wound. But this time, the issue was about how he and other notable historic figures should be memorialized. In the first few weeks of his anniversary year, the debate over Oñate's deeds reached emotional heights with the anonymous amputation of the foot of the bronze Oñate statue in Alcalde. It was a symbolic retribution for Oñate's punishment of Aquama Indians. Still, others say Oñate's deeds can be explained and forgiven by the time. The colonial 16th and 17th centuries, when killing, came with the territory. When you talk about the Quanto Centenario, I don't equate it with Oñate. Oñate is a player on the stage. And in a way, he's a moot point

in the 400-year history. Because what we're really talking about is a legacy of people's who have learned to live together to cohabitate for 400 years and nowhere else in North America can anybody make that claim. And that's the Mexico's claim. And so do we dwell on the individual negatives of people or do we talk about how we learn to cohabitate for 400 years. Joining us now to continue this discussion are our Seno Cordoba. He is a Hispanic historian with UNM, Towson, Southwest Studies. We have Patuch Gilbert. He lives and works in Aquama, also a historian. And Dr. Joseph Sanchez, historian and director of the Spanish Colonial Research Center, a partnership between the University of New Mexico and the National Park Service. Thank you, gentlemen, all for joining us. Mr. Cordoba, I want to start with you. I wanted to ask you, if the idea for a statue of

Oñate had not come about, would we be having the debate that we're having today with this controversy? I think that you would be having a debate. I think that possibly the statue idea and what happened in Española with the cutting off of the statue there have been in a sense heightened some of the debate. I really don't think that people in Northern New Mexico were in any way involved if you wanted my honest opinion. I think it was probably somebody who wanted to be divisive, create a divisiveness between the Hispanics and the Native Americans. And I have worked with the people of Northern New Mexico at the eight northern pueblos in that particular area and taught school at Northern New Mexico Community College. And we are the children in a real sense of those colonizers that came with Oñate. We have the best of two worlds. We are a Native American and Hispanic descent. And we are

descendants of those people. Our ancestry is from the 400 years ago. And I believe that we celebrate, when we celebrate 400 years, we celebrate a new race of New Mexico. But you know, to answer your question directly, I think that somebody that wanted to heighten the debate did this in order to do so. As I travel throughout the different parts of Mexico and Spain, I've traveled to both countries and I find many statues to heroes and villains, you know, and that is a way of telling history. And I don't see anything wrong with having that statue. Well, Mr. Gilbert, do you agree with that? Do you agree that maybe it was somebody who wanted to be divisive and create more controversy between the Acimas and the Hispanics in New Mexico concerning the statues? I think it goes beyond Acama. There

are people out there that probably have very strong feelings about what Oñate did to Acama and to other Native peoples here. But I think the significance of more of a confrontation between cultures is in this confrontation in some at some time in the future was bound to happen. Because today, Acamas and other Native peoples in New Mexico are dominated or subjugated by this instance of colonialism that prevails today. And so that struggle to raise issues to bring them to the forefront in describing how we've been treated and maintained under this oppression is an issue that arose and will keep coming to the forefront in our

people's struggle to really determine their own destiny. And sure, we used to phrase this, you know, self-determination and sovereignty. But one, people don't understand those. And secondly, certainly, they're not fully respected by the loss of New Mexico or by the loss of the United States. Right. The argument is that a lot of people are saying is that the killings and the atrocity went both ways. The Acamas were also doing a lot of killings during that time and so were the Spanish. Historically, there's always been conflict among people. And I take dispute with Dr. Chavez in saying that Acamas occupied for defensive purposes. That's not our orientation. And certainly, that's not our reasons for moving up on that

mesa. That place is Hago, Hago, in my people's movement from the north. And they were looking for a place Hago, a permanent homeland, a promise line. And when they came to Acama, some groups said, yes, this is the place. And they set up their centers before the Navables arrived in the area. Right. Well, I want to go to Dr. Sanchez now. In the story, it said that the Acama Pebble held a key to the survival of a Spanish colony. And that basically followed what Dr. Chavez had said that it was strategically located as a defense. What kind of sense can you make out of all of this? Was it, was it, did it hold a key to the survival of the Spanish colony, the Acama Pebble?

Probably in one sense, yes. I might be a double-edged question. When you take a look at the idea that the Spanish came in into New Mexico, scatter out every single Indian group that was within sight, learned a lot about them, learned who they were, also formed in a dual-Indian policy. For example, the Indians on the plains were considered to be too strong to deal with. And Onyate immediately imposed the policy that no one was to go out to the plains to trade with them because if you angered them, they might overrun the Spanish settlement of New Mexico. The settled Indian Pueblos were a bit different, but even within them, it was known that some of these Pueblo groups were more warlike or at least were stronger than others. Certainly, the Spanish look upon Acama as a Pueblo, which is quite strong and formidable, perhaps not just because of the defense of position that held in a Mesa. That's how the Spanish looked at it from point of view of having established themselves in New Mexico, looking out to see where the Indians were located and looking out to see which were the strongest Pueblos. Certainly having a Pueblo in a Mesa,

such as Pecos, for example, or even Acama, put them in a different category. It is known at least among the Spaniards that the Acamans also held this particular key of the survivorship of the colony. Should they go to war with the Spaniards, it certainly would have meant the destruction of the Spanish colony. It happened then that they did choose to do that. The Spanish, looking at it in a very military way, decided not to leave an enemy at their back, but to confront the enemy, deal with the situation and control as much as they could at possible Indian uprising or Indian war, Indian Mexico and which the colony of New Mexico would be lost. In that way, I would say that the Spanish looked upon maybe at Acama as a possible key to their survivorship. Well, there are several interpretations of what exactly happened at Acama that day. There are historians who say one thing and another, and I even heard someone say recently that the incident in Acama never happened that the feet were not cut up of 24 men. What actually happened? What does history really say? There are all kinds of history books to say different

things. What actually happened? Everyone can answer that question, but I'll let you go ahead and start. Two ways that we know what happened at Acama. One is through perhaps the Acama and oral tradition and perhaps other oral traditions in the area, which in the popular mind tend to fade because of the fact that they're very little known views, and I'm sure if a touch can account for a part of that. We know mostly about what happened at Acama through Spanish colonial documents. Had it not been for the Spanish settlers who opposed Onyate and the attack as to how it took place rather, it was perhaps documented. There was a trial in which the trial was also documented of the Indians who had perpetrated the death of Juan de Onyate's nephew. And of course, the documentation goes a bit further. It details the account of the battle. It details the account of what started the war to begin with. It details how the Council of War was taken at San Juan de los Caballeros, what was said in it. It details how the settlers took

a vote on perhaps deciding to attack Acama as an object lesson. It also details the battle itself. It is said that during the battle that the siege warfare that the Spanish were used to carrying out in Europe as well as in other parts of America played a role. It is also said during the battle that the Acama had decided that they would not surrender, or the women and children. Saliva himself stated that they had to rescue women and children from being harmed by the warriors who were refusing to let them out of the pueblo while the battle was going on. These types of statements are coming from Spanish colonial documents. Tell you a different story of what the battle is like. And certainly it gives you a whole different impression. We tend to see history in terms of absolute terms. But in the relativism of history itself, we see a whole different development of a story that is yet untold and pretty much misunderstood. How do you see what happened, Mr. Horlova? How do you interpret the history?

Well, I agree with Dr. Sanchez. I think that one of the things that is very important is that the Council of War was gathered in San Juan. That included the clergy that were to make the decision as to what was to happen to Acama. So it was not the decision of one individual as a lot of people believed that Oniate decided to take revenge for the death of his nephew and their troop that had gone to Acama before, the month before. But it was, in fact, a Council. And the Council, there were conditions as to when you could declare war and one of us was the interruption of peace. And I think this is the one that was most attested to at that particular time. They said, you know, this violates a peace that we have in New Mexico. And if we do not take care of it at this point, you know, we will have a major uprising in our hands. So I think that that has to, that point of clarification

has to be made is that a Council of War did gather and the decision was made to go on from there to attack Acama. There are several, like Dr. Sanchez says, several accounts. But, you know, the Spanish sure, we're very good at documentation. You know, they did daily reports. And we get their side of the story through a day-to-day basis of the battle, as well as the history of the colony. Right, I have a, one of those accounts right here, Frey Juan Descalona wrote to the Vice-Roy in Mexico in 1601, a report on the story condition of the settlement, meaning with, after I guess the one that became governor, the governor has oppressed his people so that they are all discontented and anxious to get away, he wrote. But I want to talk to Mr. Gilbert about how he sees a history. It seems like what, from what you're saying, that history is, is clearly defined by these incidents. So why is there so much controversy at this point

about what actually happens? Some are saying this happens, some are saying this happen. And how do you see it, Mr. Gilbert? I think it's a real challenge in interpreting events and history. About two weeks ago, I was asked to, by some high school students, to tell them the truth of what really happened at Accomam. I said, I don't know that I can do that. I said, I was not there, and I'm not God. So I started out by saying, we interpreted history from what we learned from our parents, our grandparents, our elders, and then by the materials that Dr. Osantius was talking about. So when we look at the time in Accomam 1599, January, the things that led up to it, because of the Spanish soldiers making the request for food and probably women, we see a confrontation resultant because of a disrespect, one for people's disrespect,

for not understanding that you were invading people's homes, people's homeland. And I think a clash, a clash of one ideologist, that you felt that Catholicism and the right of government to come in and intrude into people's territory and claim that as yours was pervasive. And that the Spanish felt that they could do what they wanted because of this power, because of this dominion over over land and people that they'd determined to be God-given. And so forced this kind of ideology and ways down upon the native peoples, really, I believe, brought upon this warfare. And our stories of that particular battle and the subsequent destruction of the village has been passed down,

but the punishment of my people is something that is generally not reviewed by elders. It was not passed down to generations. And not until we begin reading history, do we learn of what actually happened. And of course, there's also stories about how my people were saved, spiritual intervention during the battle, people escaping during the battle, and people's reoccupation of the village, in spite of historical records saying that the village was burned and entirely destroyed. So when does the healing begin? I think it began. Or will it ever? It does. It did. You know, when today we're asked about reconciliation, I believe that one reason that the story is not passed down because of the spiritual and religious nature of my people,

in saying that the only one that you come into eventually to ultimate confrontation with is Almighty. But as far as the people, my people, I believe, you know, really at some point in time, you know, forgave the people for whatever happened in time because you're going to move forward and you're going to live with what happened. And you are still going to determine who you are into the future. And ultimately, it turns out that we're still challenged by what happens in historical times. And you know, we're still fighting to determine who we really are. Right. Right. I wanted to ask, I wanted to ask, did you want to say something? I was going to say, the story also is important because of the way that we interpreted in 1998. If we look at the values of the period of, say, 1598, the values are completely different.

The perspectives are different. It's not just a story of Spanish versus Indian. It's a story of the European colonization of the New World. It's a story of colonialism in which the violation of the various sovereignty of different indie groups took place, not just by the Spanish, by the Portuguese, the Germans, the English, the Dutch, the French. Every European who came across came across with a notion that this was their land. The New England chargers, for example, that extended from C to C certainly were a violation of the Indian sovereignty of that particular period, but it made no matter to the European. The conquest of the various Indian groups on the Eastern Seaboard were very much akin to the conquest of various different settlements in the New World. So when we take a look at the values of the period, we take a look at perhaps one of the strongest values of colonization, and that is conquest, pacification, then eventually settlement, control over native groups, exploitation of native groups, and exploitation of raw resources. All of these come together in the form of colonialism.

And it's colonialism which is pretty much the culprit in these relationships. But even within those relationships, there are different definitions of colonialism between the British, the French, the Portuguese, and the Spanish. In the Spanish version of colonialism, it was okay to mix bloods. It was okay to mix people and perhaps create a whole new race of people in the new world. There was a reconciliation in many ways. And even when you take a look at New Mexican history and you isolate it, it appears that it's just one group that perpetuated these particular atrocities on native groups, but it was widespread and it was not just widespread within North America, it was global. Well, we have about 30 seconds left, so I want to ask all of you, maybe you can answer one or two words, do we have something to celebrate this year? I'll start with you in this question. Yes, I think that we have a celebration of a new people. I think that Mr. Gilbert's remark about healing already did start. And it did start a long time ago. I think I agree with that. I think that the healing between our people started a long time.

To the point where we have become one people in a sense that we are all descendants of those pueblo and Indian and Hispanic people that came here 400 years ago. And it happened. I didn't know there was any great healing to be done at this particular time because I have lived that healing and I have understood that healing through my family. Well, very quickly, I want to ask, do we have some of this else? You know, we have a celebration of survival that in spite of the attempted destruction of a people and a place and a nation of people, we are still very much alive today. And it is in that sense that I say this struggle continues. And this ultimate, I think, nation to nation who are indigenous peoples are fighting for, we would have brought about a confrontation. I think this celebration is certainly a very important word in this because to celebrate and extoll the virtues of survivorship among native groups is one thing to celebrate

the coming of Europeans which leads to the world we know today is another. But more it is a commemoration of an event that took place. And I think in a more subtle way, the commemoration is more important because it allows us to look at people not in terms of contributions, but in terms of our participation, our joint collaborative participation in the development of history and time and place. Well, we'll have to end it there. Thank you so much gentlemen for joining us today. And that's our report for this week for all of us at KNME, Omar Sichapa. Thank you for joining us. If you would like to contact us here at Infocus, you can reach us on our website at www.pbs.org slash KNME or at our email address at Infocus at KNME1.unm.edu.