There are no good guys
and bad guys in Clendinnen’s book; ultimately, there are only misunderstood
guys. For example, although Clendinnen may observe that “Maya…conviction of
their actions… which preserved…a sense of autonomy…” (183) reveals a cultural
resilience on the part of the Mayas (183); even today, scholars have difficulty
understanding Mayan culture, evident when she observes that “the written words
that we have-even if there were no problems of translation- could catch only a
part of the complex and shifting meanings they held… for the Maya” (137). So,
while one may look at messages left behind by the Maya, it is definitely
possible that the meaning of given messages may be misunderstood or corrupted,
which makes it difficult to characterize Mayans as “good” or “bad” guys.
On the other hand, while it may be easy to scapegoat Landa
and the Franciscans as bad guys, we should also remember that there were fairly
good reasons for their actions. Clendinnen makes it clear that “with the
Indians of Yucatan he (Landa) had a special relationship” (123). Additionally, “it
is possible that his friendship with the old men who were his informants were
among the most emotionally rewarding of his life.” (123). Therefore, one can
deduce that once Landa found out about the claims of human sacrifice, he felt
betrayed by people he thought of as his close friends. Of course, it didn’t make
it right for him to go on a rampage, but before one can call him out for his witch-hunt
and classify the natives as good guys who were victims, one must remember that
some of them, such as Nachi Cocom abused friendship with Spaniards. As much is
clear when reading that “In his early relationship with Landa, it is possible,
indeed probable, that the old chief was at least manipulative as the young
friar” (187).
In short, I don’t think that there were any “good” or “bad”
guys when relative to each other in this case. Rather, there were “misunderstood”
guys.
I agree with your statement about there being no good guys or bad guys just a big problem with miscommunication. The overall actions of the individuals were not always black and white but more in the gray area. For example, at the beginning it seemed that Landon was a great remarkable guy that turned evil due to the Indians betraying his trust. When in reality, Landon’s perspective we see that he thought that he was being too easy on them and that in order to understand that he truly cared about their salvation he would have to punish them in order for them to learn that he was doing this for their own good. Like how a child disobeys a parent and the loving parent knows the child must learn how to obey in order to understand the importance of their mistake and learn from it.
ReplyDeleteAnother gray area decision would be that controversial question of did the natives really understand and fully convert to Christianity before supposedly “backsliding” from it? The natives were schooled, taught, baptized and followed the teachings of the friars but as an add on to earlier traditions, after all the Yucatan natives had thought the Spanish to be like other conquers. They would stay for a bit, but eventually move and leave them alone once again to practice the true Mayan religion. Unfortunately, that did not work out as planned. The younger generation of the Mayans were often intimidated and blackmailed by their tribal chiefs and elders to continue and participate in the old ways, not Christianity (173).
This younger generation struggled to maintain their loyalties to both parties: Mayan Chiefs and the Franscians. The believed in the law and teachings of Christianity but were often threatened that if they did not also participate in the old ceremonies it would be them that they would sacrifice to the gods (200). So if they tried to go against their tribe they would be killed, seen as traitors to the Mayan people and cast out of society. These young people were caught between a rock and wall and simply had no choice in the matter if they desired to live and not cause shame to themselves and their tribe.
Both groups had their motives and loyalties but the real reality of it all was that if the Franciscan friars’ had taught the natives another way and the natives had understood what Christianity was before being baptism, then they would have not been converted and there would be no backsliding since no one converted. Instead there would be lots of idol worship and human sacrifice.