Monday, April 14, 2008

The Conquest of America: Pre-Class Reaction

I say that one of the best lines (well at least most amusing) is something along the lines of: so the important thing was the parrots. Although it is said with humor I think it relates to an important point. As Jen pointed out, Columbus’s perception of the world makes one want to scream in frustration. But then again he was to an extent a product of his society, so he wasn’t the only one with a faulty personality. I found the concept that black people and parrots signify gold nearby to be a hilarious idea. To us that sounds completely ridiculous but it is funny to find out what “signs” and “facts” people relied on at the time. I too was surprised by this insight into Columbus’s motivation and perception. For one thing I forgot that people at the time still believed in things like sirens and monsters. And it is fascinating to find out just hypocritical, biased and to an extent naïve Columbus was. As Mike pointed out, the author provides several sources as evidence, so I find the picture he painted of Columbus very believable. To me cultures are valuable, so Columbus’s careless and disrespectful treatment of the native cultures is something that frustrates me. As Jen pointed out he just went around renaming things and disregarding what the natives said, unless it was convenient for him to listen to them (if he “understood” them in the first place). That is another interesting concept to his character, his interpretation of language…any language he encountered he viewed through a bias of his own language: he tried to apply their words to European concepts and practices. That is a distinct difference between him and Emilio. Emilio tried to use the language in order to understand how the culture functions, of course he had to do that in reference to what he knows about human interaction, but he recognized that there was a fundamental difference between the languages of Earth that he knows and this new alien language. And through these differenced he was able to understand some of the cultural differences. Columbus on the other hand saw the natives simply as potential Christians or as savages to be killed or exploited. His opinion of them seemed to change overtime, but he always twisted facts to support his theories or ideas. For example, on page 40 he talks about how they are cowardly and not a threat, and so chooses to leave some of his men behind, and then comes back to find them murdered…so he makes up some theory about how they are easily scared but also vile creatures who kill when someone gets separated from the group. Reading that just made me laugh. He is so hypocritical and engrossed in his own views that he is truly blind to the reality around him.

Cortes on the other hand seems to be more aware and observant of things, even though he is just as manipulative. Like Columbus he too manipulates facts and “signs” in order to achieve his goals, but he still seems more aware of reality. Also, the whole concept of “signs” as presented in this book was a fascinating idea to me. People have always tied symbolism to things; even the common action of naming an object creates a function or explanation for it. And it was interesting to read how differently cultures can use signs and symbolism. It is interesting to think that, as Todorov says, the Spaniards were able to defeat the natives using signs. Looking at the big picture it does make sense that the Spanish were able to come out on top because unlike the Aztecs they were able to (to an extent) learn about the other culture and then use what they found out about it to manipulate and destroy it. (Goes back to the idea in Card’s book that you must understand your enemy in order to eliminate them). Mike raises this point in his post as well: the fact that Cortez needed to know something about the culture in order to manipulate it to his own benefit.

In the end such cultural interacts are basically frustrating to me, because it is not respectful of cultures.

1 comment:

Mr_Brefast said...

Its interesting to me that you find cultural interactions like Cortes' frustrating, because I feel somewhat similar. You say that you are bothered because it is not respectful of other cultures, which makes enough sense to me; I am actually more interested at the individual level. Cortes must have been quite the smooth operator (and fairly evil to boot) if he could continuously deceive the natives in the same ways over and again. I know that in class we were discussing cultural norms of the time, and how the natives weren't even technically human, so perhaps that portion of "justification" for their treatment checks out. I am also drawn to the point in class where we talked about knowing the other, and how body language was one of the only ways to really begin knowing someone. You would think that of all the millions killed, one or two of them would make noises and movements indicating pain as they were killed, and that the Spanish would pick up on that. Thats one of the pieces of this that surprises me, to be honest. I know that today, in Israel, the young soldiers who man checkpoints are, on average, required to receive extensive psychological counseling for the ways they treat (specifically pregnant) Palestinians. The Israelis don't particularly like the Palestinians, and so they dehumanize them, yet they still need psychiatric help for their actions? I guess I am wondering if a similar such sentiment arose in any of the Spanish involved.

-Mike