Bound Lives By Sarah O Toe

The casta term “Indian” confined Andeans to the notion that they were subjects; obedient to the crown and always paid tribute. The idea that Indians were poor and miserable creatures that needed protection first emerged in the sixteenth century. Indians that paid tribute and that served mita were the ones that received protections because it meant that they were in compliance with the Spanish crown. In return, the crown would make them vassals-- thus making Indians important members of the colonial society and distinguishing them from Africans. However, converting Indians into vassals also benefited the crown’s economic goals as they exploited Indians for labor. According to Rachel Sarah O’Toole, in her book Bound Lives: Africans, Indians,

The “poor Indian” narrative used in courtrooms excluded Africans and their issues from the colonial perspective. In fact, the only time Africans would be brought up in trials was when Indians would antagonize them for their own benefit. Many of these Indians were aware of the crown’s idea of protecting Andeans from“predators”, especially Africans. This was done by Indians in hopes of convincing the crown of their impoverished state-- Andeans included this narrative with the idea that it would help reinforce the notion that Indians were “helpless” and needed protection. In some cases Indians would claim that African men “stole from their fields, robbed their members, and (in some cases) sexually assaulted indigenous women” (73). By claiming that Africans were a threat to Indian communities, Indians continued to play the victim when it came to constructing their judicial narrative. It also demonstrates the extents of which Indians would go to in order to gain these legal privileges that Africans didn’t have. Indian and African relations, in fact, were not as dramatic and violent as they were often depicted by Indians. O’Toole offers an example of this when she states, “...in daily relations coastal Andeans had amicable and ongoing contact with enslaved men”. However, when “constructing themselves as vulnerable Indians in judicial narratives”, “coastal

The defiance of their established subjective role affected negatively their role in society because they were breaking the norms-- they were now acting out of their casta. This defiance started to appear during the 1640s, when the crown began to privatize Indian lands. This act was called ‘the composicion de tierras’, and it virtually took away lands that have belonged to indigenous communities for generations. The ‘composicion de tierras’ contributed to this defiance because it made it difficult for Indian leaders to negotiate with local colonial authorities. Leading many of them to act differently from the ideal Indian that served mita and paid tribute. For example, Indigenous landholders from Lambayeque, instead of playing the submissive role of the “poor Indian”, they had a more logical stance. O’Toole states, “Their arguments were based on ancestral land claims as well as their dependence on written documentation, both of which they understood had ensured their land ownership” (82). This demonstrates a change in the Indians’ judicial narrative-- Indians were being challenged by the reducciones and had it difficult playing the role of the poor Indian. Their lands were being taken away and privatized, and “acting like an Indian” seemed to be an ineffective route to resolve their problems. Some of them, like don Andres de Ortega and don Carlos Chimu would