This monograph offers much more than the focus of its title on its little-known—and hence possibly suspect as marginal—subjects might be taken to imply. Out of fragments of the stories of 598 identifiable individuals, out of some 8,100 Asians (and more than a few globally traveled Africans) reaching central Mexico as slaves aboard the returning vessels of the famous Manila galleons from Manila in the Philippines between roughly the 1560s and the 1660s, Seijas has spun sophisticated insight into the laws and politics of Iberian (primarily Spanish, but indirectly also Portuguese) domains in both the Pacific and the Atlantic worlds, the laws, politics, and cultures of Spain’s República de Indios, in the Philippines as well as in New Spain, and the beginnings of racialization of the Hispanic New World. The book’s subtitle alludes to the transcending conclusion: these Asians (except for the Africans arriving from Mozambique via Goa, the Indonesian archipelago, or Macau, who remained negros) were chinos integrated into the Spanish monarchs’ overseas realms as “natives,” protected under the Patronato Real as royal subjects and hence not legally subject to enslavement.The contradictions of the legal ambiguities created by “natives” enslaved in Asia (and beyond) and their theoretical, and often contested, liberty in America generated much of the documentation—petitions, investigations, judgments—that supports the book. Seijas handles these technical materials like a lawyer, and that’s a very good thing, since seventeenth-century Spain was a tangle of plural jurisdictions, royal decrees and fueros, canon law, Inquisitorial jurisdictions, and municipal regulations that she navigates with all the assurance of the pilots of those Manila galleons, framing the records in terms of the relevant jurisprudence, sensing the legal options not pursued, and considering possible circumstances behind the issues but not presentable in courts of law as evidence. She thus turns the very problematics of case records into rich and revealing sources for history. In this review, a single example will suffice to illustrate a necessarily simplified summary of a complex argument: the Tagalog and Visaya of Spain’s Philippines were “Indios” with precisely the same legal indemnities as Nahua in New Spain or Quechua in Peru, but in Mexico as chinos they were treated as enslaveable along with Muslims from the Mughal Empire captured in “just wars” and natives of China or Japan of no less unassailable status as property through their acquisition by purchase.The story climaxes with resolution of these dramas in the 1672 decree making the chinos unambiguously full-blooded “Indians,” leaving them to their further assimilation into the native communities of rural central Mexico and into the emerging castas of its cities. The decree thus left their former captive shipmates, of African origin, as the only legally enslaveable residents of the realm, and Seijas concludes suggestively by remarking on the contemporaneity of this decree with what she sees as parallel racialization of slavery in the English Americas. Among the numerous and revealing arguments that Seijas weaves from these and other legal threads are the ways in which chinos’ persistent filing of legal challenges to their enslavement might have opened the minds of the judges and other officials who made law in the Americas, the concentration of the chinos in urban domestic service and their (and other “Indios’”) harsh treatment in the textile-manufacturing obrajes rather than in rural labor, a leitmotif of contrasts with the status and conditions of the Africans enslaved in the region, and the gritty personal and social dynamics revealed in the proceedings of the Inquisition.Significant broader issues of method and conceptualization emerge in exemplary form as well. The ways Seijas has framed her arguments develop organically from the documentation at hand, resisting awkward alternative approaches—for example, to attempt to force a “social history” of aggregate categories from the small sample available to her. She historicizes the judges as well as the plaintiffs, so that we have the politics and contradictions and inevitable ironies of attempting to create order out of the inherent disorder of human life rather than a mystified implacable law. She writes about people enslaving and enforcing and engineering and evading captivity rather than trying to force humanity in all its variety into a single abstract institutionalized “slavery.” The book, finally, is a model of historicization rather than drifting into the faux sociology that too often still prevails in your reviewer’s own field of early African history, as well as in the American counterpart that proceeds under the unnecessarily qualified label of “ethnohistory.”The reader, and not only an outsider like your reviewer, comes away from this book with wide-ranging and engaging insight into the Iberian world of the seventeenth century, from Madrid to Mexico City to Manila and even Mozambique. Small packages of persona from the past sometimes open up to reveal welcome historical gifts, and this book is one of those happy occasions.
Read full abstract