The Conquest of America is a superb scholarly analysis of the Native American - European encounter. Honestly, it is rare to find a book that will make you rethink “established history,” the narrative you are told from grade school. In my mind, the conquest of America had merely been a matter of greater weaponry, the gun is more powerful than the bow and arrow. I had also considered that since most natives did not have a concept of ownership they did not understand how land could be taken from them, since it was forever a public entity, the philosophy being they belonged to the land rather than vice versa.
Never before have I seen such an analysis that takes both the natives and Europeans’ contexts of experiencing reality into account, and compares and contrasts them. I particularly enjoyed the characterization of the Aztecs’ communication as man to world. They were awfully skilled at this form, sensitive to signs and symbols, omens and prophecies. Yet this also leads to their unskilled man to man communication.
Montezuma followed a strict code for man to man communication, while Cortez prided himself on adaptability to ever-changing circumstances. The most revealing nuance or suggestion revealed in this book was that Montezuma and the Aztecs had perhaps surrendered even before the battles had begun. Montezuma’s “paralysis does not merely weaken the gathering of information; it already symbolized defeat since the Aztec sovereign is above all a master of speech…and since the renunciation of language is the admission of failure” (71). Examining the Native – European encounter in this light, I would agree with Todorov that the conquest of America was more a matter of signs than superior weaponry.
There is an interesting hsitorical documentary on PBS called Guns, Germs, and Steel that delves more deeply into the conquest of South America. I agree with you that strenght alone did not win the conflict. Historians surmise that a lack of a publically accessible written language made it very difficult to pass on political and military expertise. It also impeded the passing of information.Besides this, you are right in saying that superstition impeded the Aztecs. Making battle plans and political decisions based on rituals and subjective sign reading is a breeding ground for irrational decision making. It also made the Aztecs greatly manipulable to more secular force, such as Cortez's conquistadors. While Christian, these soldiers were in it for gold more than God.
ReplyDelete