There was no meeting ground between them which finally ended in the Pueblo revolt. According to Mancall, “Richard Hakluyt the elder, a prominent London lawyer, succinctly described the rationale for those efforts. After enumerating the varied rewards, he further stated three goals of colonization. 1. To plant Christian religion 2.To trafficks 3.To conquer.”(p.1) Weber states, "Pueblos religious beliefs were more important than Apache raids or drought in causing them to revolt" (p. 22). In his review of Webers’s book Lorraine Coops writes, “Primary sources also help the students to "get inside the heads" of people in the past--to try and understand individuals motivations and experiences from their perspective. Peeling away the layers of the colonial facade can help students discover both sides of the story. If our goal as teachers is to make history "real" to the students, then primary sources need to be incorporated into our work.”
The goal of the colonists was selfish. They did not arrive with friendly intentions. But something unexpected also happened which worked to the tremendous disadvantage of the American Indians. Mancall observes, “When the Spaniards moved across the Atlantic, they became the first Europeans to unleash deadly diseases among the native peoples of the Americas.”(p.5) The American Indians suffered exploitation from all ends, people starved and many thousands died of diseases, for which they had no immunity or medicines.
Considering the Pueblo revolt: Is there any room for disagreement within each group? Did the Pueblos have cause to support the Spanish? Were there Spaniards who opposed the subjugation of the Pueblos (or at least the way(s) in which people told the stories of conquest and subjugation)? Would a common Spanish soldier relate the same story as a Captain? A New Mexican colonist and a Franciscan friar?
No room for disagreement