The Conquest of America by Tzvetan Todorov free essay sample

Todorov brings about an interesting look into the expeditions of Columbus, based on Columbus’ own writings. Initially, one can see Columbus nearly overwhelmed by the beauty of these lands that he has encountered. He creates vivid pictures that stand out in the imagination, colored by a marvelous descriptive style. Todorov gives us an interpretation of Columbus’ discovery of America, and the Spaniards’ subsequent conquest, colonization, and destruction of pre-Columbian cultures in Mexico and the Caribbean. Tzvetan Todorov examines the beliefs and behavior of the Spanish conquistadors and of the Aztecs. Initially, I thought of Columbus as someone primarily seeking gold for the glory of the King and Queen. This is a driving force, primarily because the gold will serve as a future funding for the grand ideas of Columbus. It is interesting to consider that one of the primary goals, especially when encountering the native population, is the conversion to the Christian faith for the glory of God. God and money go hand in hand in Columbus’ exploration. Crimes against humanity in the name of any god seem to be a constant part of the human psyche. Columbus lays claim to any island he can see, claiming it for the glory of God and the King and Queen. Everything instantly becomes property of the Spanish Empire. The natives initially have no understanding of the events that Columbus and his entourage perform when they lay claim to a new land. Religious dedication and a greed for gold caused Columbus to exaggerate his claims of the amount of gold available and the cowardly nature of the native population. Columbus describes the natives in near animal or beast of burden terms, because of the nature of the culture of the natives. The natives are dressed simply, if dressed at all, and have no religion that is apparent to Columbus. Based on first appearances, these people should be easily conquered and ready for conversion to the Christian Faith. Sometimes it is uncomfortable to look back through history and see the atrocities that have been committed by those that are thought of as civilized. The advanced civilizations of Columbus’ age were enlightened, making great progress in the sciences and humanities, but only according to their narrow world view. They were fully engaged in an air of cultural and moral supremacy. Those that were different, in dress, culture, or religious beliefs, were beneath them and destined to be conquered or converted. So many atrocities were committed in the name of God, especially in the name of Jesus Christ. Todorov delves deeply into the dark consequences (intended and unintended) of the European discovery of the Americas and represents the first important study of the influence of religious belief on the interactions beginning with Columbus with the savage â€Å"Other. Todorov puts forth one way of linking communication and conquest when he argued that Europeans conquered the Amerindians through their superior ability to understand the â€Å"Other. † More generally, he contended that western Europeans had a general â€Å"superiority in human communication,† demonstrated by the fact that they used alphabetic writing (Todorov 251). For Todorov, Europeans displayed â€Å"remarkable qualit ies of flexibility and improvisation,† characteristics that allowed them to be more effective in imposing their ways of life on others (Todorov 247–8). They were so successful, Todorov argues, that in the centuries following the initial encounter between Europeans and Amerindians, Europeans were able to gradually assimilate the â€Å"Other† and eliminate alterity. While many people attempt to dismiss the religious aspect of this relationship, but as Todorov shows, it is central to understanding the dynamics of European conquest and the ultimate fate of the New Worlds native inhabitants. Both in his letters and in his diary, Christopher Columbus repeatedly expresses his primary purpose as a religious one. Perhaps, due to the obvious problems for the Catholic Church that this represents, this motive has taken a backseat to the supposed thirst for gold that has overshadowed the religious roots of this horrific tragedy ever since. An important aspect of Todorovs thesis is his well-supported claim that it was precisely the claim to European racial superiority that Christianity strongly reinforced and provided justification for the actions of the Spanish, even in its most severe manifestation. In fact, Todorov invokes the unimaginably horrible image of Catholic priests bashing Indian babys heads against rocks, allegedly to save them from damnation to hell, which their savage culture would have otherwise consigned them to. The logic of this deed and others like them illustrates the destructive influence of Christianity in the Colonial project, which lies at the root of the hegemonic self-image of Western experiencefirst defined from the perspective of Columbus and Cortes. If eligion was a guiding principle in the lives of the conquerors, as Todorov points out, so too was it for the conquered, especially in the case of the Aztecs. Baffled by the paradox of the famous story concerning Cortes and his several hundred Conquistadors ability to defeat the entire Aztec empire, which numbered at least several million, Todorov reveals that it was primarily due to Montezumas belief that Cortes and his party were Gods, which led to his reluctance to raise an army in opposition. As Todorov observes, It is as a consequence of this perfected system of information that Cortes quickly gains a detailed knowledge of the existence of internal dissensions among the Indians. (Todorov 103). What Cortes discovered was that the Tlaxcalans, a tribe which had been subsumed under the Aztec Empire, were still hostile enemies of the Aztecs. As a result, Cortes was able to convince them to wage war against the Aztecs as the allies of the Spanish. Controlling information about the enemy was crucial as evidenced in both examples. Generally, it was only the Spanish who had the interpreters and therefore an understanding of their opponent, which gave them a distinct military advantage. Therefore, translators played an important role in the conquest; one which some scholars argue was the key factor in the Spanish victory. Todorov claims that the effective conquest of information leads to the ultimate collapse of the Aztec empire. (Todorov 103). In the middle section of the book Todorov gives a detailed analysis of this stunning historic event and shows that Cortes victory was not necessarily due to any great military achievement, instead it was mostly the result of the Aztecs refusal to mount any kind of an effective defense until it was too late. Therefore, it was Montezumas uncertainty, born of his own religious belief that led to the sudden collapse of the Aztec empire. The problem of translation was another which caused much dispute as to whether indoctrination should be done in Indian languages. Many words, especially in the religious vocabulary, represented concepts which simply did not exist in the native language. The missionaries concern for the correct transmission of the Cathohc faith, correct meaning their own interpretation, was hard to reconcile with the fact that some of the basic words of the faith were untranslatable into the Indian tongue. How could the word God be translated when what the Indians meant by their word for God and the Catholic definition of God were two totally different concepts? Sahagun, who attempted a faithful chronicle, the Indians history by recording oral testimonies in Nabuatl, substituted the word devil for the Nahuatl God in his translation of the work. (Todorov 232). Sahagun is another example of a historian and chronicler who carefully recorded original accounts of their history in his monumental work The Florentine Codex. He interviewed Indians who were eyewitnesses to the conquest and used native scribes to record and illustrate what was said in Nahuatl. It would seem that his method would be a close reflection of the original view of his own history and culture. This was not the case. The organization of the work is entirely European, as all is mediated through Sahaguns eyes. The questionnaires which he used to organize the accounts are one way of controlling the information. Todorov notes that Not only do the questionnaires impose a European origin on American knowledge, and sometimes keep the relevant information from passing through. They also determine the themes to be treated, by excluding certain others. (Todorov 233). Apart from Sahaguns presence in the Nahuatl material, the accompanying Spanish translation to the Nahuatl text includes notes, prologues and digressions, which according to Todorov, frame the entire work. (Todorov 227) In the final part of the book, Todorov investigates the impact that these events have had on the subsequent writings on the subject. In particular, he focuses on the work of three writers, all Spa nish, but among the first generations of Europeans native to South America. These works that are primarily only known to scholars in the field offer many surprises to the contemporary reader, showing that there was a far more open view of the non-European Other expressed by those who lived among them in the waning days after conquest. Perhaps, that is one of the most dangerous luxuries of victorythe ability to show compassion for the defeated, but always, yet always too late. After reading this book, I discovered that Columbus Day and all that it necessarily represents will never be seen in the same way again. This is because, people who haven’t read Todorov’s book, are obviously unaware of who the person behind the mask really was. Columbus is declared a so called â€Å"hero† to the Americans for discovering America. That’s mainly what the average person knows about it. When you really think about it, every year when Columbus Day is celebrated, people celebrate and dedicate the holiday to him, but people don’t really know what they’re really celebrating. These people don’t know that he really wasn’t the good guy that he was claimed to be. It was just a myth. All Columbus cared about was gold and spreading the Christian religion, which he believed he was destined to do. If anyone was considered different to him, such as the Indians, they would be declared as inferior and be conquered or assimilated. Now, how can you call that type of a person a herowhen all he did was make others suffer? In the 2nd half of the book The Conquest of America by Tzvetan Todorov, Todorov discusses Bartolome de Las Casas and Bernardino de Sahagun. Bartolome de Las Casas was one of the best known missionaries in Spanish America. Todorov uses the terms â€Å"distributive† and â€Å"assimilationist† to portray Las Casas’s approach towards the American Indians. (Todorov 190-191). The ideology that he created to legitimize this diverse entity was the notion of perpetual peace or sulh-i-kul. This ideology, to use Todorov’s term, demanded a distributive rather than an assimilationist approach, because of its cross-religious or cross-cultural outlook. In terms of the built-in scale for valuing civilizations, then Indian civilization’s greatness lay in its ability to absorb diversity and make it its own. As a consequence of this approach the greatness of civilizations, which boasted of their unity of faith, was automatically suspect from an Indian point of view. Todorov highlights Las Casas’ love for the Indians. Las Casas was touched by the massacres committed towards the â€Å"Indians† and decided to attempt at protecting them. He did not, however, develop a great knowledge of them nor did he learn their language. He even attempted to justify the human sacrifices they were committing through arguing about â€Å"natural reason† and that it is their way to adore God, by giving the greatest sacrifice of all: human life. According to Las Casas, thus there is a universal love of God, but all religious expressions of this love are culturally specific, and as such relative. As a consequence, Christianity is not the only, nor the best way to God. Barbarism is a relative notion as well. One is always a barbarian to others and vice versa, as long as one does not recognize the language being spoken. Whereas for some the Christian principle of the equality of men ensues the assimilation of â€Å"Indians,† because they are similar to us, Las Casas tries to figure out the perspective of it. Las Casas’ political solution to the â€Å"Indians† is to maintain previous states with their Kings and governors, with catholic preaches but without the military, and if the Kings express this wish, to establish a sort of federation presided by the King of Spain. They must be given their original freedom back and be reinstated in their sovereignty. Todorov argues that in order to convert them, Las Casas had to conceive of them as equals: â€Å"It is not that Christianity is unaware of oppositions or inequalities; but the fundamental opposition here is the one between believer and unbeliever; Christian and non-Christian; yet each man can become a Christian †¦ equality is an unshakable principle of the Christian religion† (Todorov 161). â€Å"The three axes on which we can locate the problematic of alterity† (Todorov 185) as proposed by Tzvetan Todorov. The construction of this typology along axes rather than levels is important, because it preserves the independence of each kind of experience of the other: Todorov writes, â€Å"There exist, of course, relations and affinities between these three levels, but †¦ we cannot reduce the to one another, nor anticipate one starting from the other †¦ Knowledge does not imply love, nor the converse; and neither of the two implies, nor is implied by, identification with the other† (Todorov 186). This places Las Casas on the positive axiological axis. In fact, Las Casas often appears to view the Indians as superior to the Spaniards. However, Las Casas’ knowledge of the other (along the epistemological axis) is inferior to that of Cortes: this is Todorov’s point that these modes of perceiving alterity are distinct. By assuming the Indians’ equality, Las Casas fails to recognize their differences. On the praxeological level, Todorov argues that Las Casas and Cortes are essentially equal. Both always ground their distance from the Indians in the latter’s distance from their own identity. Even if Las Casas identifies the Indians with the Hebrews and the Spaniards with the Devil (Todorov 165-166), we can still see that everything is relative to his own Christian identity: â€Å"Las Casas is content to maintain an egocentric position with regard to time as well as space. If he admits that there are differences between Spaniards, and Indians that would function to the latter’s disadvantage, he does so in order to reduce them immediately by evolutionary scheme: they (over there) are now even as we (here) were once †¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Todorov 166-167). Las Casas, also, ultimately rejects the idea of difference by illustrating that the Indians are potential Christians. He insists that the Indians possess Christian traits; in fact, he professes that their â€Å"most characteristic feature is their resemblance to Christians† by using such descriptors as â€Å"humility,† â€Å"obedient,† and â€Å"peaceful† (Todorov 163). The Indians demonstrate little interest in material wealth not because they are lazy (as the Spanish ironically claimed), but rather because they possess a Christian morality (Todorov 165). Yet if the Indians are potential Christians, then they are fundamentally no different from the European Christians sent to convert them. According to Tzvetan Todorov, then, while Las Casas refuses to condemn the Indians because they are different, he simultaneously refuses to admit that they are different (Todorov 167). Consequently, Las Casas is able to justify colonization on spiritual grounds, and maintains that it should be carried out by priests instead of soldiers. (Todorov 171). When it comes to the topic of war, Valladolid debates between Sepulveda and Las Casas to gain insight into some of the questions facing just war theorists today because the debates lay bare the logic for expanding jus ad bellum in the case of those perceived to be barbarians, and a compelling counter-argument. Sepulveda proposes that a more expansive understanding of jus ad bellum is necessary in the case of barbarians, defining just cause in terms of identity and the natural law, balanced by humanitarian ends such as saving the innocent and spreading the natural law. Las Casas illustrates the dangers of Sepulvedas position and offers an alternative framework of jus ad bellum that focuses on injury and warns against including humanitarian benefits in the just cause criterion. Las Casas ultimate wisdom lies in arguing for the restriction of jus ad bellum in the face of those who make compelling arguments, draped in moral universals and humanitarian imperatives, for its expansion. (Todorov 151-167). Todorov considers Duran and Sahagun, two chroniclers of conquest. They are remarkable – Sahagun in particular – for their â€Å"success† (Todorov 218) on he epistemic axis. Both were deeply committed to learning about the other. Duran repeatedly states that â€Å"to eliminate paganism successfully, it must first of all be known thoroughly† (Todorov 202). Duran is remarkable, in Todorov’s estimation, because of his hybrid identity as a Spaniard who moved to Mexico at a young age. His intimate acquaintance with Aztec cult ure is permits â€Å"a rapprochement with the object observed† (Todorov 217) and it is this positioning of himself in relation to the other that places Duran just barely on the positive side of the praxeological axis. However, as Todorov points out, â€Å"Asserting his own hybrid identity in confronting the beings his is trying to describe, he no longer succeeds in his project of comprehension, since he attributes to his characters thoughts and intentions which belong only to himself and to the other cultural hybrids of his time† (Todorov 217). True identification of self with the other is rare, as Todorov indicates, though Gonzalo Guerrero, the shipwrecked Spaniard, comes the closest (Todorov 195) and the wonderfully named Albar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca identifies â€Å"incompletely† with the Indians after he too is shipwrecked (Todorov 198). Duran occupies a similarly ambiguous position on the axiological axis: few people would likely agree that he loves the Indians, but he is forced to believe in their equality in order to make his putatively anti-syncretistic conversion possible (Todorov 207). Sahagun is similarly successful in his acquisition of knowledge of the other: even more successful than Duran, Todorov argues (Todorov 240). It is for this reason that he is so highly positioned on the epistemic axis. Todorov writes that Sahagun â€Å"does not to any degree renounce his way of life or his identity †¦ yet he learns the other’s language and culture in depth †¦ and ends †¦ by sharing certain values of those who at the start were the object of his study† (Todorov 240). Although he occupies the same position as Columbus on the praxeological axis, Sahagun is distinct from the latter in that his position is a result of the ambiguity of his identification, rather than complete disinterest as in the case of Columbus. Todorov notes that, like Las Casas, Sahagun â€Å"adheres to the Christian doctrine of the equality of man† (Todorov 239), but it seems that Sahagun goes a step further: â€Å"The replacement of Aztec society by Spanish society is therefore a two-edged sword; and after having carefully weighed the pros and cons, Sahagun decides, more forcefully than Duran, that the final result is negative† (Todorov 237). For this reason, Sahagun is farthest to the right on the axiological axis. This would appear to contradict Todorov’s later assertion that the axiological axis ranges from equality to inferiority, though Todorov notes on page 165 that â€Å"this inverted distribution of values, incontestable proof of his generosity of spirit, does not lessen the schematic of his vision. † Sahagun is considered a Franciscan â€Å"linguist†, not part of the aristocracy or high ranked religious — who despised having to lower themselves to learning Indian culture and language, so he learned the language — Nahuatl — and learned to live together with the â€Å"Indians. He was a professor of Latin grammar in the Franciscan college of Tlatelolco dedicated to forming the Mexican elite from the former nobility. In order to propagate better Christianism he projected to write the history of the ancient Mexican religion. His Historia general de las cosas de Nueva Espana would occupy him for forty years. However, his project was also dedicated to develop knowledge of and preserve the Nahuatl culture. In order to do so, he chose to report faithfully the testimonies he collected with a translation, instead of replacing them by it. This translation constitutes more an interpretation from the original text. His interventions in the text are not only rare, but clearly separated from the rest. They are characterized by an intention to avoid moral judgments and attempt to explain from other known civilizations such as Ancient Rome. Obviously, however, the knowledge is organized in a European way through answers to a European-made questionnaire. Sahagun saw the terrible consequences of the replacement of the Aztec civilization by the Spaniards. He dreamt of the creation of an ideal state that would be Mexican and Christian — a city of God. Todorov categorizes Sahagun in his â€Å"typology of relationships to otherness† as a believer of the Christian doctrine of equality between men. However, even if he learns the language and the culture of the â€Å"Indians,† he maintains his identity, and even idealizes the â€Å"Indians. † What is interesting in his work for Todorov, is the massive knowledge that he accumulated without perpetrating any qualitative judgment. His work can be qualified as â€Å"ethnography† as he is just collecting information without interpretation, and making only a timid comparison with Ancient Rome, but without being comparative. For him, cultures cannot be hybrid nor should they be; cultures stay in their own rights untouched. Nonetheless, Todorov sees there the embryo to any future dialogue between civilizations that we today experience. At the end of the book, Todorov closes with a discussion of â€Å"Las Casas’ Prophesy† concerning the wrath that â€Å"God will vent† not only upon Spain but all of Western Europe, because of its â€Å"impious, criminal and ignominious deeds perpetrated so unjustly, tyrannically and barbarously. † Todorov overlooks not only the generally religious framework of Las Casas’ prophesy, but also the particularly Western concept of justice.