Anyone can be defeated by signs. Humans are social animals so we want to see what other humans are up to. We are expert communicators, except when we're not. Todorov paints a clear picture of what happens when communication fails either due to some barrier, misunderstanding, or plain ignorance. But does he? Todorov describes some interactions between Spaniards and Indians, but the clearest example is between two individuals: Montezuma and Cortes.
Of course, there are examples of indigenous omens and religions that suggest otherwise. Todorov explains that the natives' main communication was with the Earth rather than between groups of people. On page 97 Todorov asserts that the Spaniards win the war because "they are incontestably superior to the Indians in the realm of interhuman communication." The differing forms of communication did help the Spaniards and inhibit the Indians, but I would argue that it was not by means of signs. The mode of communication was different and interpreted with respect to their culture, but I think the question is not asking if the Spaniards defeated the Indians because of a misunderstanding.
As we discussed in class, Montezuma, as the Aztec king, had a responsibility to deal with the Spaniards. Yet we determined that Montezuma was not a great agent in this ordeal. Was it necessarily his fault? I argued that Cortes was acting strategically to essentially psych out the natives. According to Todorov, Cortes "presents himself simultaneously as an enemy and as an ally, making it impossible, or in any case unjustifiable, for Montezuma to any action against him" (113). Pages 111-113 describe Cortes's strategy for controlling the information the natives receive and their perception of him. Most importantly, Cortes must control Montezuma's perception of him so that Montezuma does not take action. For someone so realist that he mimics Machiavelli, there is something that feels very constructivist about controlling the narrative.
The Spaniards did not just defeat Montezuma- obviously, they conquered the Americas and destroyed Native American societies. Todorov illustrates the way the Spaniards systematically conquer, and while that can not be overlooked, I believe that the interactions and communication between Cortes and Montezuma played a key role in securing Spanish victory. We floated the idea of what could have been if Montezuma had acted differently, but what if Cortes had acted differently? If he had not controlled the narrative, the Spanish would not have won this war.
Of course, there are examples of indigenous omens and religions that suggest otherwise. Todorov explains that the natives' main communication was with the Earth rather than between groups of people. On page 97 Todorov asserts that the Spaniards win the war because "they are incontestably superior to the Indians in the realm of interhuman communication." The differing forms of communication did help the Spaniards and inhibit the Indians, but I would argue that it was not by means of signs. The mode of communication was different and interpreted with respect to their culture, but I think the question is not asking if the Spaniards defeated the Indians because of a misunderstanding.
As we discussed in class, Montezuma, as the Aztec king, had a responsibility to deal with the Spaniards. Yet we determined that Montezuma was not a great agent in this ordeal. Was it necessarily his fault? I argued that Cortes was acting strategically to essentially psych out the natives. According to Todorov, Cortes "presents himself simultaneously as an enemy and as an ally, making it impossible, or in any case unjustifiable, for Montezuma to any action against him" (113). Pages 111-113 describe Cortes's strategy for controlling the information the natives receive and their perception of him. Most importantly, Cortes must control Montezuma's perception of him so that Montezuma does not take action. For someone so realist that he mimics Machiavelli, there is something that feels very constructivist about controlling the narrative.
The Spaniards did not just defeat Montezuma- obviously, they conquered the Americas and destroyed Native American societies. Todorov illustrates the way the Spaniards systematically conquer, and while that can not be overlooked, I believe that the interactions and communication between Cortes and Montezuma played a key role in securing Spanish victory. We floated the idea of what could have been if Montezuma had acted differently, but what if Cortes had acted differently? If he had not controlled the narrative, the Spanish would not have won this war.
I would argue though that Montezuma's actions can't completely be blamed because they were a result of signs and the Aztec culture. He didn't have the signs to understand the threat the Spaniards posed and so didn't retaliate against their violent actions, leaving the "Indians" vulnerable to being conquered. I definitely think he played a role in their defeat, but I also don't think his actions can be judged by themselves.
ReplyDeleteI would also view this manipulation of signs as a manipulation of human nature. While of course the two forms of communication with the world differed immensely between the Indians and the Spaniards, I believe “basic” aspects of interaction were still in place (For example, if someone attacks the other has the right to retaliate). Do you feel as though the book undermines the connection (or separation) between culture and human behavior? Is it even possible to make a proper distinction?
ReplyDelete