Royal policy relating to the segregation of Indians may seem at first sight a minor aspect of the history of Spanish America, for as a policy it was continually flouted in practice, and it seems to stand only as one additional indication of the crown’s tragic misunderstanding of colonial realities. But when we seek the original basis of the policy and the reasons for its failure, we find ourselves at a new level of inquiry. Magnus Mörner’s book is the result of ten years of research devoted to these problems.
The policy of segregation is the point of departure. It arose from the doctrine of “bien común” applied to a colonial society of two “republics,” one Spanish and the other Indian. Originally Spaniards were expected to provide the civilizing example, and Indians were to be imitative wards. With the Spanish “bad example,” however, a change occurred, and segregation came to be justified as a means of protecting Indians from Spaniards. Other things being equal, segregation was consistent with much of the Spanish pattern of settlement as well as with the ecclesiastical organization and the political-legal structure of the colony. But neither the monarch nor any other administrative power in the imperial government was capable of reconciling segregation with another of the Spaniards’ goals, Indian Hispanization. Moreover, other things were not equal. Indian isolation broke down under pressures from Spaniards, Negroes, and mestizos. Intrusion upon Indian society increased as Indian population declined. Hacienda and peonage brought social redistributions and changed the forms of Indian labor, subsistence, and land tenure. In extreme cases, Indian towns disappeared or were converted into mestizo towns.
The general outlines of the process are familiar, and certain features of it are known in some detail. But Mörner’s treatment goes beyond earlier studies in its geographical coverage and in its perception of the problem as a whole. No other student of royal policy or Spanish-Indian relations has so systematically examined so many archives, including every major depository from Mexico to Chile and Argentina. For the first time we have sufficient data to make objective comparisons between one region and another. Indian segregation persisted for longer periods on the frontiers. The late colonial period, which witnessed a revival of the “good example” doctrine, was a time—paradoxically if we suppose that the Bourbon government was a centralizing one—of much local adaptation. Differences between the capital and marginal zones gradually disappeared. The segregation laws, having become dead letters, were readily abolished with independence.
This is a pan-colonial study based on full documentation, and it seems unlikely that the pattern it describes will be appreciably modified. Mörner’s should be the basic treatment for a long time. The need and opportunity that remain are for more detailed local studies, quantitative comparisons, and, beyond that, a full-scale investigation of the problem of mestization.
