Sunday, November 21, 2010

Reflective Post 13

I missed class on Monday and the interesting lab on Wednesday; however, the class discussion on Thursday provided me a good understanding of the learning objectives for the week. Todorov’s analysis of the Other based on the American encounters was enlightening. The theme of the entire books was very interestingly “the question of the Other.” This new paradigm of analyzing the first encounters between the Old and New World’s was something I had never before considered.

I saw Todorov’s work mainly as identifying the Spaniards as the “self” and the Amerindians as the “other.” This dichotomy I think was made on a fundamental assumption that the Spaniards were more advanced than the Indians and therefore the narrative that played out after the encounter was dominated entirely by the Europeans.

Todorov noted how the Indians were not searching for the Europeans; they were entirely unprepared for their encounter with the Spanish Conquistadors. The Aztec narrative was slightly different. Because of Aztec traditions, the Spanish arrival was already prophesized but in a different form. The “other”( Cortez) was actually a divine form as prophesied in Aztec Tradition. This elicited a response not of violence, but of accepting the Spanish with gifts and other treasures. Had there been no similarities between Cortez and the Aztec god-believed to return one day from the East- then the understanding of the Spanish “other” would have generated a different response. This fundamental belief as part of the “signs” was a major reason for Aztec demise. In understanding how the Aztec viewed the “other”, their judgment of the Spanish was defined and influenced by their traditions. Todorov explained the role of improvisation in the conquests. The Aztecs lacked the ability to improvise because they relied on traditions and previous experience. They acted not based on an accurate understanding of the Spanish’s intentions but based on dogmatic beliefs.

The Spanish came with the intention of conquest, and no amount of exposure and appreciation of the Indians would have prohibited them from their goal. Cortez learned a considerable amount about the Aztecs, but this willingness to learn was not a gesture of goodwill, but as means to conquest.

Interaction leads to an enhanced understanding of the other. But as established in the class, an understanding of the other does not necessarily lead to acceptance, tolerance, or even mutual separation. This was one of the most important concepts I learned in this class; the nature of the relationship between the “self” and the “other.”

No comments:

Post a Comment