 |
| Indians v. Spaniards |
Currently, we are reading the book Conquest of America: The Question of the Other, and in it, it discusses the Spaniard invasion in the Americas. The author poses the question of, "Did the Spaniards defeat the Indians by means of signs?" At first, when I read this, I was confused with the wording of the question. However, if I am interpreting correctly, the author is asking, "did the modes of communication between the Indians and the Spaniards result in the defeat of the Indians?" If this is what the author is implying, then I agree.
The first thing that comes to mind when I read "means of signs" was religious/fate signs. For example, I have a personal experience of receiving a "sign." There was this one time that I was running late to work which is a 30-minute commute from my house to there. To get there, I would drive through quite, country roads, and I knew that I would not find any police officers there. Hence, I would speed. However, there were numerous times that I felt someone advising me to slow down, so I did. Not too long after, a police car would pass by me. That voice was a sign. This is similar to the Indians. For instance, when a child is born, the Aztec's tradition was to consult an "astrologers, scorchers, or soothsayers…[who would] state the destiny of the newborn boy or girl" (64). The Aztecs relied on their indices and omens, the same with the Mayans. They lived by the guidance of their gods. This is a perfect example of the types of "communication" that Todorov believes is seen between the Indians and Spaniards.
There is the "man-to-man" communication and the "man-to-world" communication. The difference between the two is that the one is inter-human, and the other is inter-worlds (i.e., the natural world and the spiritual world). The Indian culture is to follow the guidance of their gods, and fulfill what is predestined for them. However, after the Spanish invasion, the Indian's world took a complete 180. These ruthless and ostentatious invaders began to implement their ideologies upon the Indians. Since the Spaniards are accustomed to "man-to-man" communication, and it was not there—because communication was limited—,, the Spaniards assumed that they dominated the Indians, which lead to their oppression. According to the Mayans and Aztecs, they felt that they "lost control of communication…[and that] the language of the gods has become unintelligible, or else these gods fell silent" (61). They lost hope. The Spaniards had suppressed Their beliefs, ideology, and culture. Their identity was stripped away from them and was forced to adopt one that does not reflect who they are. This was one of many things that resulted from the invasion. So when Todorov asks if the Indians were defeated by "means of signs," I say yes. Not only are they defeated, but they are forced to change. Their oppression was due to the Spaniards' lack of fully immersing and learning the Indian culture. Communication is key; however, the Spaniards disregarded locating it. ☼
Going off on what you stated at the end of your post, that "the Spaniards disregarded locating [communication]," I would argue that they weren't trying to look for it at all. Their primary purpose was conquest and they wanted to achieve it with whatever means necessary. If they had the opportunity to communicate it is very possible they would have tried to negotiate, but given that that wasn't an option they didn't even try and instead took over the native populations. It's possible, and we can hope, that if the Spaniards had tried more to communicate with the "Indians" that things would've turned out better, but we have no way of knowing that now.
ReplyDeleteThank you for distinguishing between “man-to-man” and “man-to-world” communication in your analysis. The discordance between the Spaniards and the Aztecs apropos of communication arguably does explain why the Spaniards got the upper hand. I agree that the Spaniards did appear to be ostentatious, but how were they?
ReplyDelete