History is story-telling.

While some would argue that facts can tell a story all by themselves; however I would argue that the narrator is required to bring the story to life. The necessity of a narrator or storyteller inherently creates biases within the story through the way it is told.

Until today I never noticed just how biased some of the information and education I have received and continue to receive is. Call me naïve, but I believed that because I was sitting in a university history class the knowledge being shared would be unbiased and educated as possible.

That was my first misconception: educated does not mean unbiased. The history that we are taught throughout school and life is not without its faults. Many of these truths and legends that we now glorify in the past are products of oppression and injustice. Rather than acknowledging the truths behind reality, we as a society continue to pretend it never happened. I thought the intellectual community would be done pretending that horrific crimes like rape and slavery never happened.

But apparently not, as exemplified by a recent history lesson taught by an individual who shall remain nameless for this article. This particular course is a 100 level course covering Western American History, which dedicates the first two weeks of class to the discovery of America.

So while explaining the influence of the conquistador Hernán Cortés in Central America and how he conquered the Aztec Empire, the role of his translator and mistress emerged. Interesting how in the past two weeks of class, she has been the first woman mentioned as playing any part in the formation of the Americas.

However, the obvious lack of any major minority contributions to America’s history thus far does not even come close to the blatant disregard for sexual violence that occurred as part of the conquering the Aztec Empire. My professor wrapped up his only woman section by informing us that Cortés and his mistress’ off spring was the first mixed race child, which signified “Modern day Mexico”. While there is a slight possibility that he meant used this phrase to prove legitimacy, his statement only exemplified ignorance and disrespect towards mixed races born out of violence.

The next section of my professor’s patriarchal history lesson included a brief description of the New Spain social system. New Spain was considered to be a fairly “inclusive” social society because the indigenous people were an integral part of functionality of society. However, after holding my hand up for a solid couple minutes (longer than what was comfortable), my professor decided to acknowledge the fact that I had a question.

I asked, “Where did the mixed race people fall in the social system?”.

“They were the majority, so… with everyone else”.

Then he proceeded to say that there were very little Spanish people and a lot of indigenous people.

I was very confused at that point.

So I asked another question, “How can the mixed race be the majority if there are a lot of indigenous people and very little Spanish people?”

His answer was simple, “Interbreeding”.

Instead of saying that the birth of a new race was a byproduct of the violent conquest of the Aztec Empire, it was simply referred to as “interbreeding” and clumped together with “the majority”.

Later in the same lecture, the term “interbreeding” was used to describe the custom of intermarriage between Indians and French fur traders as a way of solidifying allies and trading relationships.

Then when comparing the relations between indigenous people and the English, the professor asked the class if New England fostered a culture of inclusion, based on whether intermarriage existed or if they were having babies together. Both answers were no. So based on this logic, if an English settler raped an Indian woman and a child was born, the child would not be recognized as existing because Indians and the English do not have babies together.

My professor had the opportunity to raise my classmates’ awareness of the reality of conquest and shed light on a group of people that history continually forgets about. But instead he did what too many people do today, he ignored sexual violence. Then he further blurred the lines by allowing “interbreeding” to be synonymous with intermarriage. Finally to top it off, there was a lack of acknowledgment for the idea that a mixed race could exist outside the context of consensual mixed race relations in all three empire conquests. Thank you sir for continuing to teach history in the most patriarchal and misogynistic way possible.