In attempting to avoid the trap of perpetuating the history of exceptional figures, Townsend argues that Malintzin made the choices that anyone else in her position would have to ensure her survival. However, it is impossible to deny that without her easy grasp of languages and political strategy, Malintzin would merely be yet another concubine handed over to Cortés and his crew. Almost despite herself, I believe that Townsend views Malintzin as an exceptional person that figured prominently in the path of the Spanish expeditions. Through her actions, Malintzin sets herself apart from others in her position.
The very premise of the book attempts to paint Malintzin as a typical person in her station; since there are no sources surviving that directly share Malintzin’s thoughts, Townsend is basing her reconstruction of Malintzin on the expectations and generalizations of other concubines and slaves of the time. Yet from the moment she is given to Cortés, Malintzin is no longer a typical slave. Bernal Díaz asserted “‘Dona Marina was a person of great presence [importance] and was obeyed without question by all the Indians of New Spain’” (150). While it is unlikely that she inspired such unswerving devotion in all that met her, the fact that she was acknowledged at all and given honorifics by both the Spanish and the natives, both of which had strong patriarchal societies, proves that Malintzin was far from a typical concubine. Townsend constantly tries to couch her arguments in the assertion that Malintzin was not exceptional, she herself points out that Malintzin was instrumental to any communication with the Nahua, and “whatever the great lord Moctezuma was to say to the strangers in that first encounter, and they to him, would have to pass through her” (84). Without Malintzin’s intelligence and critical thinking skills, communication between the two groups would have been near impossible. Townsend credits her with playing an integral role in the events in Tenochtitlan and beyond.
While I do not believe in model of history where great men served as the catalyst of change, I do believe that individual decisions can influence the manner in which events change. In her decision to speak up and become translator, Malintzin changed the course of Cortés’ expedition. Inevitably the conquest would have occurred, but the events played out the way they did specifically because someone who was able to convey both words and connotations to each side of the conflict translated them, and was able to promote her own survival in the process. Her actions of running her own altepetl and accepting tribute were certainly typical of her culture, but rarely did a woman start off as a slave and work her way up to controlling her own land and directing her own path (155). While others would have tried to survive in her situation, only Malintzin took the action to make her instrumental to Spanish success. Malintzin was not born intrinsically exceptional, but her will to act made her exceptional.
Well done on this post. For such a short amount of words, a lot was covered about Malintzin and Townsend's perspective on her. I agree that Townsend values Malintzin highly. Malintzin played a prestigious role in this specific time period as a translator and even culture interpreter. It was primarily two things that Malintzin possessed or did that placed her as a prominent character in history.
ReplyDeleteThe first is her courage and initiation. Without these two character traits, her life story would have been far different. As historians, the question of what if is always present yet impossible to prove. The only think we can assume is as you previously stated, Malintzin "would merely be yet another concubine handed over to Cortés and his crew." Her courage to step up in a time of need for potentially her own survival is another key factor to her prominence in history.
The second thing Malintzin possessed was a knowledge of understanding language. Without this skill she would have become useless to the Spanish, at least as a translator. She probably would have moved from being a slave of the Maya to the Spanish. It is the skill that elevated her to such a high position between both Meso-americans and the Spanish.
There are only two points of contingency I have with your response. The first is that you state in the second paragraph "Townsend constantly tries to couch her arguments in the assertion that Malintzin was not exceptional." I believe this is a typo because immediately after that you give reasons as to why Townsend thinks Malintzin is an exceptional women. I just wanted to clarify this and see if it was a typo or not. The second portion of your response that I disagree with is the beginning of the third paragraph. You state that "I do not believe in model of history where great men served as the catalyst of change, I do believe that individual decisions can influence the manner in which events change." I think differently.
I believe great people (whether morally good or bad) serve as a catalyst to change. It is because they are great that they make monumental decisions that change the course of history. This is also applicable to those who may not seem great, but make decisions that have catastrophic change that was inconceivable. For example, Cortes was a great man who made decisions that had monumental impact on history. Maybe I am debating more on your definition of great than argument to prominent characters in history. I see "great men" as prominent people in history that made changes in history based on their decisions. I hope I am clear in trying to understand what you are saying by "great man," and by justifying why "great men" have a large significance in history.