Garcilaso versus Guaman, and other thoughts

I was absolutely fascinated by Garcilaso’s commentary on the Inkas! I’d read bits and pieces of the text in other courses, but never as extensively as this. It was so awesome. As I read, I was subconsciously scanning for elements of Guaman Poma, as they are somewhat similar (chronicling from a mestizo perspective); pushing Catholicism, confusion as to where he belonged, etc. Unlike Poma, Garcilaso seemed to be quite assertive about his place. Unless to validate his royalty, Poma referred to the ‘Indians’ and the ‘Spanish’ from a third-person point of view. Garcilaso seemingly embraced his Indigenous roots, incorporating his uncle’s oral account with heaping praise and the utmost attention to detail. This contrast in belonging raises some interesting questions; was there any particular reason why Garcilaso had a stronger sense of belonging to either group? Of course, Garcilaso later moves to Spain and becomes Catholic. But he was sure of his place in either sphere. It seems that Guaman Poma never had that sense of security, and I wonder why. Perhaps it was just their personalities? I also loved how the two chroniclers had drastically different rhetoric, and viewpoints for that matter, in terms of the Inka. Poma frequented the words ‘infidel’, ‘heathen’, and ‘idolatrous’; this isn’t to say he also didn’t heap praise onto the Inka. But Garcilaso had no such words for the Inka; instead, he glorified almost every aspect of their reign. This may be an oversimplification of their viewpoints, but I wonder which perspective (Catholic-leaning v. Inka-leaning, so to speak) more accurately reflects the beliefs of mestizos during the earliest decades of conquest? It would be ignorant to discount the role power would have played in the formation of these beliefs, as Spanish domination could have forced the Inka-leaning viewpoints out of the mainstream discourse. Furthermore, assuming that any Indigenous Andeans didn’t maintain an Inka-leaning sentiment – or that it is such a clear-cut question – is harmful. Structural oppression and domination play enormous roles in shaping the ‘approved’ discourse of the oppressed; that is, what becomes representative, or what may be recorded. Thus, I pose my question of Garcilaso versus Guaman within this framework, not wishing to simplify or generalize the views of Indigenous Andeans facing an oppressive colonial system. Maybe a better way to word this would be Garcilaso or Guaman. Or both? I would be very interested to hear other interpretations of the similarities/differences between these two chroniclers. Are they more alike then I have given them credit for?