After finishing Clendinnen's portrayal of events, in which she tries to puzzle out the particularities of Spanish actions in the Yucatan, I feel somewhat as if I am trapped in a Tom and Jerry cartoon, or a Bugs Bunny skit: the clever and sneaky prey thwarts their predator by running circles around them and using the enemy's shortcomings against them. In the case of Landa at least, there is a definitive negative view of his actions; not only is he described as haughty and power-hungry on several occasions, his overzealous drive for punishment of his former students is contrasted with the more moderate stance of nearly everyone else in the Yucatan, as well as the opinions of the Court of the Indies. When he tries to gather more support for his case, he is defeated at almost every turn by people defecting to side with Toral and company, and the arrested chiefs change their stories to demonize him. The supposed mastermind is soon caught by his own zeal for "justice," and his case dies until the death of Toral. Even after becoming bishop, he still has very little support, almost through his own doing (his previous one-man embargo of new missionaries to the Yucatan). In Clendinnen's portrayal of events, Landa certainly looks like a clear villain, if a clumsy one.
Not only in the individual case of the overzealous Franciscan is this cat and mouse game seen, but also in the very framework of the Franciscans' teach-and-conquer method. In the Franciscans' mind, the best way to convert all was to teach a small number of the children, so that they in turn could spread the word among their families and villages, thus creating small missionaries to carry out the indoctrination and destruction of the old customs for them. The reality was vastly different; the tools of the Franciscans against the "devil-worship" were instead used against their goal. With this new tool of the alphabet, elders hastened to preserve their traditions through codices such as the Books of Chilam Balam. In their haste to smite out the devil, the missionaries instead handed the natives a more convenient method of preserving their traditions and pass them on to later generations. In a sense, the missionaries gave the natives the weapons with which to fight against their crusade.
I agree with the post above because it did appear as though the friars, the Spanish colonists, and the natives were claiming to be the “good guys” and accused others of being the “bad guys” and usually did so to promote their own interests. Reading Clendinnen’s book, I think it is safe to say that there were some victims, especially when we look at the confessions and the measures taken by Landa to extract the truth. It is also safe to say that there were some bad actions taken by the friars, driven by Landa’s fervor.
ReplyDeleteClendinnen’s “Spainards” chapter indicated that most of the settlers were content to live among the natives as long as they provided tribute on time and they provided enough Natives for service to suit their needs. (44) This indicated that for the most part the natives were to some degree allowed to go about their lifestyles provided they met Spanish demands. However, Clendinnen also stated that another group of Spanish missionary friars would soon come to the Yucatan and insist on changing native institutions to the core. (44)
Clenndinnen devoted a fairly large portion of the book to the Franciscan friars and their methods to “care for Indian souls”. (48) The friars firmly believed that they were doing the work of God and were doing the right thing by saving the natives from their devil worshiping. Clenndinnen pointed to the many shortfalls of the friar methods for converting the natives to Christianity. It becomes clear that the natives probably didn’t fully understand the teachings and were required to be baptized and attend service. Clenndinnen clearly expressed the devious methods that Landa took once he discovered native idolatry and sacrifices. Clenndinnen stated that Indians were taken up in “hoists” and tortured with no legal hearings but with friar support. (74) Further, Clenndinnen stated “friars’ actions were on any score illegal”. (75) After reading this book it is difficult not to believe that Landa wasn’t a villain. Clenndinnen shifted all blame to Landa for the other friars’ actions. Clenndinnen made it clear that there had been many others who were “victims of Landa’s captious and relentless spirit”. (99) After all Landa was able to destroy Hernandez for shouting “aloud what many of his fellows had muttered”. (63) Landa was also able to trouble Bishop Toral and greatly limit his ability in the Yucatan after he was sent back to Spain. In the end, Landa did become a bishop and was sent back to the Yucatan. So, I guess we could say that he “won” the prize after all, even if it was at the expense of others. Landa of course believed himself to be a good man who was merely doing God’s work.
I agree with everything here. Clendinnen does give us a sense of right and wrong being at play here, but finding out which is which is a bit more complicated. We get a sense that the Franciscans thought that what they were doing was right and that they thought the natives were wrong to not fully convert to their ways. However, I feel like Clendinnen is trying to reverse this in her book, make the Franciscans look wrong for forcing the Maya to adopt something they did not fully understand and make the Maya look right for resisting the new cultural practices that were being forced on them in some way. I do not think, however, that Clendinnen plays into the Black Legend entirely. Yes she points out that the Franciscans did not treat the Maya well but she does not paint the Maya as being these innocent and naïve victims. She paints it more like the title of this blog, the clever Maya victims and the clumsy Franciscan villains.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with you, at least on this point: Clendinnen does not consider the Franciscans villains. Her portrayal is not entirely favorable, but that I feel comes more from the actions they took. Clendinnen makes a point of repeatedly mentioning the degree of betrayal which the Franciscans clearly felt, and in particular the betrayal which Diego de Landa must have felt.
ReplyDeleteHer previous portrayal of the heroic and near mythic exploits of the Franciscans helps to create a context for their reaction to the native "backsliding" and she makes a point of mentioning the paternalistic nature of the relationship between the natives and the Franciscans. When she describes the friars' attempts to correct the natives for their errant ways she describes the "punitive rage of a betrayed parent" (113). It is not out of malice or spite that the friars punish, but as a parent correcting a child who has done wrong.