Are there “good guys” and “bad guys” in this book?
In Ambivalent Conquests, Clendinnen writes of the
good and bad in the people involved in the conquest. In particular, she wrote
about the good and bad in the friars.
After the Maya uprising of November 1546 in Merida,
the friars would later find out how the Spanish soldiers gave a lack of
adherence to the requirements of the mission’s program. Many of the soldiers
disregarded the humanity in the natives when they were out to break the spirit
of the natives. In Fray Lorenzo de Bienvenida’s accounts, he wrote that he
could do nothing to save the Indian women who were casually mutilated, children
were casually murdered, and for the men who were rounded up branded and then
chained. (52-53)
For the Mayans, the most comprehensive and precious
concrete expressions of their universe were the great painted books of
hieroglyphs, the repositories of sacred knowledge which were the source and
warrant for the authority of the ruling lineages. It was one of these books
that the old Cocom chief had revealed to the young friar Diego de Landa as it
was these books (133) which were eventually destroyed by the friars. To which
Clendinnen believes that the act of vandalism “must have been monstrously
unintelligible to its victims, [Mayans]” (134)
I think that it unfair to say that this book is trying to make the difference between good and bad guys. Throughout history, we have seen the actions taken by the Spaniards conquering lands time and time again, but what made this action significantly different was their drive to change the religion of the lands. This is where this question emerges; Does this religious assimilation make the Spaniards bad people? This question is very interpretative. If you are a Spaniard, you would obviously vote no, that this isn’t making you a bad person, because you are trying to spread your own religious beliefs. If you are one of the indigenous people, you would absolutely think that this is a horrible crime against your people. This interpretation is more based off of your own perspective, which is why I don’t think this book has made the conclusion for anybody, because of how touchy the subject could potentially get.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think that the Spanish were wrong in their actions in trying to convert the natives from their own religion. However, what I think is even more disgraceful is their inner fighting between the conquistadors and the friars. If their message was supposed to be a strong unified one, then they sure did not act like it. Maybe, the world would have a different view on the whole situation if they had been stronger united than they really were.