Are there good guys and bad guys (or heroes and villains) in Clendinnen's book? This is a question about how she characterizes the people about whom she writes and how she explains and contextualizes their actions. Remember to use examples from the last part of the book.
I think that writing about the conquest, one will come across many instances where the Mayans were oppressed. I think Clendinnen writes about a lot of these instances where the Spanish and the Friar’s harm the natives (55, 60). An example is Fray Lorenzo de Bienvenida’s account that states how the natives, from men, women, and children, were brutalized by the encomenderos (52-53). That is not to say that Clendinnen does not write about instances where the reader can identify with the friars and such. On the same letter from Fray Lorenzo de Bienvenida, he writes about how the friars see “themselves as the Indians' protectors” (53). An example of this protection is when Father Villalpando saved natives from death because of religious defiance (54). However Clendinnen then writes how such kind acts could have been part of the larger plan, to get the natives to convert, because after this incident the chiefs then became more submissive (54). The friars also mistreated the natives. In the Friars attempt to compact native settlements, “many Indians died” in the process and to keep the natives in the new settlements “harsh measures” were carried out (59, 142). In the inquisition “more than 4,500 Indians” were tortured (76). Clendinnen writes that the confessions in these tortures are “a product of the miserable confusion” (188). She tries to dissuade the readers from following in line with the popular idea that the natives did continue human sacrifices (165). Her view on this makes the deaths caused by the inquisition seem even more senseless. That her thought can be proven by “a little of that detective” seems like a personal attack against other historians. I think her feeling on the issue of Spanish cruelty is shown through her word choices on the section of the Maya “great pained books” which were a “precious concrete expressions of their imaginative universe” (133). That these books were destroyed is a “horror” and was seen as “monstrously unintelligible to its Victims” (134). Clendinnen also writes about instances where the natives resisted the cultural change. She writes about the Mayan strategy of acting in line with the Spanish, even though some practices were inconvenient (158). That the Yucatan Maya tried to keep their own views seem true, as there is “strong evidence” of this (160). Maya learned European writing and translated native works into books, an instance where they tried to keep their essence (134). That the Mayan tried so hard to keep their identity, makes the reader feel pity for them and makes the Spanish seem crueler. In her book I thought she was mainly trying to portray the Maya deaths and the horrors as pointless, caused by Spanish who only cared for their own goals.
ReplyDeleteIn Ambivalent Conquests, Clendinnen does not portray anyone as a hero or villain. To the contrary, Clendinnen introduces to the reader a world where individuals, both native and European, live their everyday lives not in extravagance but with a simplicity that allows them to survive in land poor in natural resources. Survival for the Maya was dependent on routine and adaptation to stresses both natural and artificial. The Maya quickly adapted to the demands of the Spaniards for tribute payments since payment switched from native lords to their new European lords. (155). It would be too easy for the friars to portray the natives, especially native lords, in conducting ritual sacrifice of various kinds as villains. It appears that human sacrifice was used only in times of crisis where the survival of the village depended on providing blood to assist the gods in pacifying whatever caused the village distress, (181). Even when Maya locals confessed to idolatry in the villages they were welcomed back, not with retribution but with the understanding that such cruel actions justified the telling of village secrets to the friars, (172). This surely portrays the unity of the Maya and erases any evidence of them as devil worshipers intent on causing pain and suffering on their fellow man. Even through acts of idolatry and the incorporation of Christian rituals, or blasphemies, Mayan leaders were only ensuring the survival of their village and customs since once they came to the realization that their Spanish intruders were there to stay, (185). Overall there doesn’t appear to be any signs of good guys or bad guys just a greater misunderstanding on both Spanish and Mayan accounts. Where friars saw idolatry as a form of resistance and insult, Mayans saw rituals that would ensure their survival and the survival of their customs and thus their identity.
ReplyDeleteDespite this being a historical book, a group of villainous characters have definitely been cast in the narrative. Those characters are the Conquerors and the Franciscan.
ReplyDeleteThe first half of the book is all about the conquest from their point of view of the Europeans. The author sets them up as the protagonists, as a story follows the protagonist the reader naturally tends to side with or at least be sympathetic towards them. Clendinnen does try and give the reader reasons to feel empathetic as she describes the hardships they must go through during the exploration and conquest of the Yucatan. She goes into great detail about how they suffered through scrapes with the natives and the wounds they suffered, even going so far as to paint a picture of what it was like for the explorers to lose their companions: “Two men had died since Cape Catoche, and their comrades had watched slide overboard to the patient sharks” (8). So it is easy to feel for these men. But that does not make them heroes, just because they are protagonists does not make them the good guys.
Clendinnen makes sure not to confuse her readers about the settlers; she does this in two ways. One is that she makes sure that the intentions of the explorers/conquerors are known. They were there to take gold, land for themselves, and slaves for labor. Heroes (as they are understood today) do not do those kinds of things. The second way the author makes sure the settlers are displayed as the villains is in their treatment of the natives. The Spanish would enslave the native Maya to use as a labor force. The Franciscans—wishing to “save” the Maya from the Spaniards—would often forcibly move and resettle entire villages, grouping them together so they would be easier to manage, protect and preach to. Though their intentions were good, their methods were not as they “adopted harsh measures…to keep the Maya in their new villages, burning dwellings in the old, smashing the hives, destroying the fruit trees” (142).
While this is a historical book and is for the most part unbiased in what it states; it clearly castes the Spanish and Dominicans in a negative—villainous—light.
I do not believe that there is a clear portrayal of good guys and bad guys in the conquest having concluded Ambivalent Conquests as people tend to designate certain attributes to various sides of a conflict. There do not have to be good guys or bad guys but, as in the conquest as described by Clendinnen, there were simply three sides that had their own interests at the forefront and used them as justification for the actions that followed. The Franciscans arrived in the New World with the plan to establish parishes and to Christianize the population with a rapid series of baptisms while the conquistadors’ goal was to gather human and material resources while establishing their own control and power. But because of their view of the natives, the Europeans used their categorization of the natives as subhuman as an excuse to justify their actions in the eyes of society and god. Furthermore, this was not a simple case of the black legend as the natives were not to be treated as victims as demonstrated by their actions in the rebellion and the perceived resurfacing of their sacrificial ways. Perhaps the Spanish underestimated the intelligence and dedication the Mayans had for their own culture; Their flawed strategy of Christianization by reciting scriptures may have worked had they employed a strategy of actually teaching the natives the true meaning behind what they were saying as Clendinnen says, “They did not desire to join with the foreigners, they did not desire Christianity. They did not wish to pay tribute”(154). Therefore, the book simply highlights the clash of beliefs between two intelligent societies and not a story of good guys and bad guys.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that Clendinnen intentionally portrays the characters as heroes or villains although readers are able to determine that through the variety of perspectives Clendinnen introduces. Clendinnen is able to introduce two perspectives and two different lives of the Spaniards and the Natives. A big role in Clendinnen's book was religion and the Natives conversion to Christianity. In this aspect readers can recognize how good intentions had led to brutality and mistreatment amongst the Natives. As the Friar's roles were to introduce Christianity and convert the Natives, power corrupted the Friars causing sufferings and inhumane actions towards the Natives. Clendinnen states that "More than 4,500 Indians were put into torture during the three months of inquisition..." (Pg.76) these tortures consisted of a large number of continuous lashes. Readers are able to recognize the vulnerability the Natives had when being tortured by the friars for idolatry. As the Friars were devoted to God and Christianity, the Natives were devoted to their Gods and religious rituals as well. Although the Natives were able to accept the Christianity and the changes that were coming forth they still held on to their beliefs and culture. Living in land where resources were scarce, the only chance of survival for the Natives were to practice their rituals. Clendinnen states, "...human sacrifices were dated at the time of 'the hurricane'...hurricanes troubled the Maya..." (Pg.181) during the time of need and necessity the Natives depended on their practices because they truly believed it would solve their problems. The Friars did not acknowledge nor did they want to acknowledge why the Natives were so involved in these practices . The Friars labelled the Natives as devil-worshippers who needed to be saved yet did not acknowledge their own extreme devotion to Christianity which had led them to commit their own sins and wrong doings. We can definitely see 'good' characters as the Natives are being forced to change their beliefs followed by endless tortures, while readers can see 'bad' characters in the Friars that are committing the cruelty. Although, I believe Clendinnen does not want to separate or establish good from bad yet she wants to demonstrate two devoted groups of people with strong beliefs. She also wants to show the power of power and how corruption can lead to wrong doings.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with in that there are different groups with different purposes. Clendinnen does not specify good or bad guys but she does go into depth in speaking of the friars. We can answer this question by looking through the Black Legend: Spanish evil and natives weak. Mayans were not weak at all. They had developed their own culture and society that is simply too difficult for the Spanish to understand (143). Clendinnen first speaks how the friars were the natives advocate defending them from the settlers. Yet, when they thought that the natives had betrayed them by keeping their own religion, they changed their perspective. We can see this through Diega de Landa’s desire to change and make justice against the Indians. Now Clendinnen says that his character was very manipulative when it came to interacting with the Indians, so much that we cannot solely rely on him (125). Deigo de Landa is a prime example of the mistreatment of the natives. This goes to show that the different parties in Yucatan had different purposes and goals which can be make them seem as good or evil. For example, the friars wanted to save souls but when really looking at it came down to a question of authority and power. Ironically being the religious guys, they can be viewed as being evil by forcing Catholicism onto the Mayans. Yet, the Mayans were neither naïve nor weak either to be portrayed as victims. Mayans were a society shaped by wars and invasion that developed their society. Clendinnen compares the Spanish invasion to the Itza invasion the Mayans had suffered from previously (157). They had complex beliefs in their deities that only can understand, for example their belief that bees symbolized harmony and balance (152). Mayans continued to practice their rituals because to an extent it allowed them to. Clendinnen argues that the Christian churches parallel to temples for the natives (170). They were aware of what they were doing because they were hiding it. This demonstrates that the Mayans were not naïve at all. The Mayans did adapt to some of the Spanish changes because it benefited them. For example, Mayan nobles would dress as the Spanish to presume their culture and in return to gain power. They tried to parallel their hierarchal system to the new one (158). After reading the book, it is hard to say that she purposely points out heroes or villains, but by looking at evidence it made the Spanish, specifically the friars, look more evil than good.
ReplyDelete