When I first started reading this book I had a hard time seeing the ambivalence in the conquests. The definition of ambivalent is to have mixed feelings or contradictory ideas about someone or something. The first expedition that was led by Cordoba was basically a slave finding mission. They were looking for more slaves to take back to Cuba. The Spanish weren't looking to conquer at that time but the idea that there was gold in this new land would lead the Spanish to try to conquer the Mayans (13). The next expedition led by Montejo while not very successful was not ambivalent at all. They went out with the intention of conquering the Mayans. Montejo made sure he had the ships, supplies, and necessary people to create a new settlement in the Yucatan (20). I think when Montejo the Younger took over there was more ambivalence toward the conquest. By now the men were tired and new that there was no great treasure to be found in the area so they stayed because they did see some potential for gain with the slaves and textiles the Mayans created (29). There were mixed feelings in the end because the men had left on this adventure to find riches only to be hit with the reality that there were none to be had, and the indigenous people were not as easy to control as the Spanish thought they would be. The other place I see ambivalence is in the religious conversion of the Indians. The friars were very excited to be embarking on this quest to convert the Indians. The contradictory ideas occur between the secular leaders and the friars. One group didn't necessarily agree with the way the other treated the indigenous people. The encomienderos were said to be treating the Indian's badly (52).
The reverse was true when the friars were dealing with the Indians and their idols. I didn't see a lot of ambivalence with the actual idea of the conquest. The Spanish wanted to go out and gain the gold they believed was to be found in the Yucatan. Where I saw most of the ambivalence was in the fact that there wasn't really a fortune to be found so the Spanish basically settled for what they could find. I also saw ambivalence in how the conquistadors and the friars dealt with each other and the Mayans.
At first I had trouble finding an answer to the question. I actually had to look up the definition of ambivalence. At first I found evidence in Cordoba’s expedition into the Yucatan, when the Spanish entered the native village only to be ambushed later (7). One could only imagine the feelings felt by the Spanish after that encounter to whether welcome the hospitality of natives or just completely reject the idea that any native they encountered had benevolent intentions. I would have to agree with you that ambivalence was found in how the Spanish came to realize that the control over both land and native would not be total and that riches would not be easy to come by as it had with the conquest of the Mexica. I think the best example of ambivalence during the conquest would be from your example of conversion of natives by Franciscan friars. At first the Friars seemed to be the best hope for the natives who sought refuge from the brutality and indifference in the killing of native lords (56). It is ironic then, and the source of ambivalence in this example, when the Spanish are the ones protecting the natives from the brutality of the Inquisition led by the very friars who only weeks earlier were promoting peace in Christianity (82). The mixed feelings that the friars experienced could in no way be justified. Although it is possible that the encomenderos only sought to protect their native neighbors in order to secure a steady stream of tribute that would not arrive if all the natives died.
ReplyDeleteI was also slightly confused when starting...ambivalent is not a word that comes up a lot. However, once se get into the book (past the first few pages), I think we start seeing just how contradictory the conquest really was. The Cordoba expedition, for instance, may have landed in the Yucatan with the intent of gathering slaves to be taken back to Cuba, but it was driven off after taking heavy casualties (Clendinnen, p. 11). Yet another thing that was rather ambivalent about the conquests was the attempt at religious conversion. This was mainly because of the two groups trying to convert the natives, but ultimately, after several "conspiracies" by the Mayans, convinced Franciscan Monks that psychological manipulation was going to work better that physical torture (Clendinnen, p. 54). So everything, from the conquests following Columbus' last voyage, to the attempted conversion of the natives, was ambivalent.
ReplyDelete