The exploratory essay consisted of analysing sources used by academic scholars while developing their argument. I analysed the sources used by Andrew Sluyter in his article “The Ecological Origins and Consequences of Cattle Ranching in 16th Century New Spain.”

Cattle Ranching in New Spain 

The Columbian Exchange brought many things to the New World, among those things cattle ranching was introduced to the New World. However, its consequences and ecological origins and haven’t been observed/acknowledged. Andrew Sluyter approached this topic in his article “The Ecological Origins and Consequences of Cattle Ranching in 16th Century New Spain.” In the article, he explained what he believes is the true origin of cattle ranching and the consequences it brought to New Spain. Sluyter divides his article into 3 sections, in which he uses various sources to backup his claims throughout his article. In This essay, it will be discussed and analyzed how Sluyter’s uses his sources and it’s going to be determine how effective were his sources in the development of his arguments in his article.

​The first section of Sluyter’s article talks about the idea that cattle ranching in New Spain originates from the Andalusian region of Spain. More concrete, it was brought to New Spain by a man called Gregorio Villalobos. Sluyter believes this man was real, and that he created a estancia, a large plot of land used for cattle ranching, in New Spain. Throughout the section, Sluyter uses the secondary sources of: Hackett 1923 1: 40-41, and AGN, Mercedes volumes. Sluyter uses Hackett 1923 1: 40-41, by directly quoting it and deploying statements derived from it. The source indicates that Villalobos brought cattle to New Spain because he wanted to settle there. Hackett 1923 1: 40-41, also helps Sluyter introduce how did Villalobos went from Andalusia to New Spain, which does affect the way Sluyter explains his thoughts in this part of the section. Hackett 1923 1: 40-41 was effective in helping Sluyter portrait that Villalobos did migrated to New Spain with Cattle, which furthermore supports his claims that Villalobos did, indeed, brought cattle ranching to New Spain. Without the source there wouldn’t be any background on how Villalobos brought cattle ranching to New Spain. Which was effective in backing Sluyter argument in this section, as the reader can be more informed about Villalobos.

​Sluyter also uses the source AGN, Mercedes volumes, throughout last portion of the section. Sluyter uses direct quotation as well as a thorough explanation of the source. The source doesn’t note the existence of the his estancia, a large plot of land used for cattle ranching, but Sluyter explains that a writ of this source indicates its existence and its location. The AGN, Mercedes volumes shapes the argument Sluyter makes and supports the point that the existence and the location of Villalobos’ estancia were real. Sluyter only relies on relies on this source to prove it. The source was effective in supporting this argument because the source accredits the existence of the estancia, as it is the translated version of the  national housing records in Mexico. This helps Sluyter acreddit the estancia’s creation to Villalobos and help the reader understand that it was not a made up story by Sluyter, which was effective for his argument. The 2 sources were mostly effective in achieving Sluyter’s goal for the section. They both help Sluyter make the claim realistic. The also helped to indicate the existence of Villalobos and his cattle ranching. Although the sources did end up shaping his argument in the section.

​The second section of the article talks about the wetland area in which the estancia was located, how was cattle ranching done in the estancia and how did the natives used to use this land before the spaniards invaded. Here Sluyter mostly uses the secondary sources Sartorius 1961;Sluyter 1995, and 1997, to explain his statements. Sluyter uses the source Sartorius 1961 to explain how was cattle ranching in this area done throughout different seasons. Sluyter makes citations from the source as well as a map of the source to empathize more with the reader. Sluyter also uses facts derived from the source to describe what ranchers would do with the cattle in different seasons. Sluyter decided to let the source impact his writing, in other words, the source was the main drive of the argument Sluyter is making in this section. Sluyter Mostly uses, again and again, the source to determine the transhumant ecology of cattle ranching in this area during the 16th century. The source was effective for Sluyter’s argument because it described how the land was used, as well as it showed a depiction, images, of how the land looked. This all helped the reader further understand the argument Sluyter is making, as well as it helped Sluyter have a more concrete argument in the section.

​The section also contains the sources Sluyter 1995, and 1997. Sluyter decided to use his own written work as cited sources, which he uses to explain the native ecology natives had on the land. Sluyter does not directly quote from this sources, instead he makes statements on native ecology, and the sources validate them. The sources also help clarify what indigenous people used to cultivate and how rapid depopulation occured after the spaniards arrived. Sluyter does seemed to rely on this source a lot, which could mean that not much research is done on this topic. Sluyter deems it right to use his own sources, as it could potentially be a waste of time to do more research on the topic. The source doesn’t, however, seem to be very effective. It does help to back his claims,but the source mostly seems to be using the source as a reference point but just as a citation to show he did research. Sluyter mostly seems to basing his arguments on his opinions rather than the source. This doesn’t help the reader the usefulness of the source which doesn’t make it as effective as intended for his argument. The sources that Sluyter used in this section of his article don’t seemed to be completely effective in backing his argument. Sluyter seemed to either let the source fluctuate his writing or not use the source as a reference point to the argument. While the first source did give a deeper understand of the argument, the second source didn’t help the reader conclude if Sluyter’s conclusions were reliable. Which shows that the effectiveness of both sources in this section did varied for Sluyter.

​The last section of the article talks about how the cattle ranching implanted by Villalobos was a success. But it also prevented the demographic recovery, as well as agroecological knowledge of native people. Sluyter decided to use mostly the secondary sources: AGN, Tierras volumes and Inegi 1984, 1990, 1991. Sluyter uses the source AGN, Tierras volumes to help him backup the point that cattle ranching prevented the recovery of native communities affected by diseases. Sluyter uses quotes from the source to describe how cattle estancias affected the crops that the natives used. Sluyter also uses the source to deploy facts derived from the source to inform that this also lead to the downfall of the natives. The source doesn’t shape his argument, rather it contributes to the point Sluyter is trying to convey. He doesn’t depend much the source, since Sluyter is mostly stating his own conclusions throughout the section. This source is effective because the direct messages from the source helped Sluyter explain what was his argument and purpose into much more detail to the reader. This gives the reader further detail on what is the argument, which shows to be effective.

​Sluyter also uses the sources Inegi 1984, 1990, 1991 to help him convey the modern use of the land that Villalobos once used for cattle ranching. The source helps him point out that Mestizo immigrants now occupy the land and cultivate maize, but it’s agroecology is not the same. Sluyter uses the source as backup to claims instead of quoting directly from it. Sluyter does repeat the sources, but it does not shape his argument in this part of the section, since it is just helping him conclude his claim. The source is effective, because Sluyter uses the source to describe modern day use of the estancia to the the reader. It also helps Sluyter stay on his goal as it explain what is happening to this land the modern era.  In the end the sources used in this section by Sluyter are effective in supporting the claim made in the section. Sluyter seems to not only depend on these sources to shape his argument, as well as being more direct towards what was his goal to the reader. In this section he doesn’t depend only on one source, instead he takes an approach towards finishing his own thoughts and claims. It could be said that he was effective in approaching his goals in this section as well as explaining to the reader the reasons behind his arguments with the sources.

​In conclusion, Sluyter’s article uses various sources, in which some are effective to backup his claims. However, it is heavily noticeable that the way he uses these sources is in a pattern. Slutyer, mostly relies on using the sources to shape the outcome of his argument or using the same sources to shape his claim/argument about cattle ranching in New Spain. Sluyter mostly achieved his goals because he was able to explain with detail and inform the reader about the origin and consequences of cattle ranching. However that doesn’t mean that he shouldn’t work on the way he uses sources. Just letting one source dictate the outcome of an argument being made in a section could lead to a one point perspective bias. This means that Sluyter has failed to explain, and comprehend some aspects of the argument being made.Which did affect some of  the effectiveness of the sources he used in his article to defend his claims about cattle ranching origins and consequences in New Spain.