In about 48 hours I'll be arriving to Mexico City. Even though only a few months have passed, I feel like I've been gone for years. I am very excited to go back to the place I have called home for all my life, and for the first time, know that it is just vacations. Leaving out my family, friends and food, what I'm most excited about is how out of place I'm going to feel. I'm going to be able to look at my city from a different lens, almost as an outsider. Especially after this week's discussions on "The Other" and the Conquest.
Both Miranda's and Mimi's posts made me reflect a lot about the relation between what we are taught and the real narrative. Miranda focuses on Thanksgiving and the education she received in Massachusetts. I can agree that my experience with history education is similar, as Westernized ideology tends to be the loudest voice. There is a common trend to leave out the "uncomfortable" facts of colonization, to the point where the Spanish explorers/colonizers can be praised as heroes. The process of colonization in Mexico, just as in many other former colonies, should not be oversimplified in the history textbooks. The "simplification" of facts many times has served oppressive and classist governments to rise and further divide the people. Personally, I'm a very religious person and a practicing Catholic. Yet, I'm also aware of the way it has been manipulated to legitimize horrible actions. Mimi's post talks about the ways religion was perceived by the Aztecs and the Spanish. The influence of these perceptions has impacted Mexico's history for years. On one hand, we are a country who proudly recognizes the division of state and church, of religion and education. On the other, we are a country culturally attached to Catholicism, the after life and other spiritually focused traditions. Depending on how it is presented by the politicians, Catholicism can create an internal "Otherness" or unite the population. These manipulation on religion, bordering the suppression of the people's free-will, are also instruments that can be used by governments to control the people. What I'm trying to get to with all of these is the importance of education. And with education I'm not just referring to the one imparted by the government. People in Mexico, and all over the world, should have the resources available to objectively inform themselves. While I recognize this as an ambitious statement, there are may steps we can take to get closer to it. Being open-minded is the first one, and I'll try my best once I'm back home for the break. I want to end the post with a quote from one of my favorite filmmakers and, even though it is not deep or complicated, it depicts a reality of today's political environment. “Now more than ever we need to talk to each other, to listen to each other and understand how we see the world[...]” – Martin Scorsese
0 Comments
The Spanish conquest over Tenochtitlán represents the clash of opposites. Two cultures with very different ways of understanding the world, at war with each other. The Spanish conquistadors, drastically fewer in number, ultimately conquered the Aztec empire. How did they achieve this? Was it, as Todorov asks, by means of signs? Or is there something else?
The author puts a great emphasis on the "otherness" that both Aztecs and Conquistadors faced, but positions one culture over the other. On one hand, he mentions how the Aztecs, unable to process the differences between themselves and the newcomers, accepted them as gods. (pg. 76) The Aztecs were no longer able to gather sufficient information about the invaders because it was out of the reach of their language. A language that was focused on the past being the same as the future, a search of knowledge to understand "what are we to know?" The Aztec codes represent a constant cycle that allowed them to understand their world, yet made it impossible to improvise. (pg.87) Another important aspect of their language is the veracity that it carried, adding to the lack of ability from the Aztecs to deceit the conquistadors. Todorov connects these linguistic elements with the defeat of the Aztecs. On the other hand, the Spanish first reaction is to perceive the "other" as inferior. This reaction is based on the Western concepts of language, considering the Aztecs as "barbarian" just because they don't share the same language construction. (pg. 76) The conquistadors use the information at their hands to decide "what is to be done?" and act accordingly. (pg. 110) One clear example of this is Cortes's use of Quetzalcoatl's myth (very much in a Machiavellian sense) to trick the Indians into believing he is a god. (pg.116) Todorov describes these and many other linguistic "advantages" from the conquistadors as key to their victory over the natives. Regardless of the evidence presented by Todorov, I do not believe that the Aztec where defeated by means of signs. On the contrary, I find the signs ultimately irrelevant to the outcome of the conquest. Just as the Aztecs had a limited reach due to their cultural formation of language, the Spanish fall victim to a similar problem. The conquistadors also accept omens and lack the vocabulary to describe certain aspects of the Indians. (pg. 108) Some of them even lack the ability to communicate "man to man" as seen in the previous chapter with Columbus. Therefore, the claim by Todorov that Cortes and his companions were superior due to their language leaves out many other variables present in the conquest of Tenochtitlán. Other problem with Todorov's interpretation comes from his viewpoint. He writes from a purely Western perspective. For example, he discards the Mexicans' cultural construction of "La Malinche" as the impossition of European culture over the Indians. On the contrary, he introduces her as a symbol of understanding and assimilation amongst cultures. Despite the altruistic aim of this statement, the reality of the oppression and destruction caused by the Spanish towards the Aztecs takes away the "understanding" part of the statement. (pg. 101) The overall assumption of the author that Aztecs were not able to defeat the Spanish based on their culture, instead of providing a voice to the "Other," continues the Western ideals of European superiority over "natives". The fall of Tenochtitlán, as in any other war, is a sum of multiple factors. Both cultures had to balance new and unprecedented information with their past knowledge. Both the Spanish and the Aztecs suffered defeats and claimed victories during this war. The Spanish, while technically outnumbered, recruited allies within the surrounding chiefdoms. The Aztecs, while supposedly superior in number, lost men at the hands of disease. Based on the number of factors ignored during the chapter, I do not consider the explanation that the Aztecs were defeated only by signs as accurate. Instead, a more in-depth exploration of the fall of Tenochtitlán is necessary to explain the impacts of the "Other." |
AlonsoI'm from Mexico City. I love cooking and eating Mexican food. Archives
December 2018
Categories
All
|