In short, yes. However, I would like to break apart this question to try to reformulate it to better represent the situation. It is well known and described in Conquest of America how the natives' society was formulated and run supremely by prophecies and omens. They believed solely in “omens and divinations deserving the greatest prestige” (Todorov, 66). This mindset, that all events would be justified by prophecies showed how spontaneous actions were nonexistent and that any events that occurred had to be previously seen by a sign.
I would rather change the format of the question then as these signs gave Spaniards power without them knowing. A question I propose would be the role and significance the signs played in the downfall of the nation's empire. This question puts a focus on the fall of power, rather than handing of power to the Spaniards, as well as, the idea that the Indians were solely defeated by their relentless belief in prophets. I believe that this difference is important since there was no ulterior motive for the Indians to concede their power to the Spaniards by simply following their beliefs and there were many other factors that gave enough leverage for the Spaniards to survive over the natives.
Although it is interesting to take the “control” out of defeat, yes, the Spaniards wanted to defeat the Indians, but they did not have control in it. They were going through with concepts and ideas that had never been tried in this environment before. In many ways, their societies and beliefs were so dissimilar that neither were able to overlap enough for one to have control over the other.
Signs did contribute to the downfall of the Indians, but they were not the single form of defeat by the Spaniards. The difference is that signs were the instigating factor that established differences between the two sides. Although the Spaniards, from being seen as divine gods to dictating their omens like the moon, were not aware of the impact that these signs were having in leading to a hierarchy being created. These signs allowed the Spaniards to take advantage of, and they did. For example, Columbus fabricated a tale that he would take away the moon in exchange, while he knew of the lunar eclipse, for the Indians to “bring him provisions without his having to pay for them” (Todorov, 19). This action was at the luck of Columbus that there (a) was an eclipse and (b) the Indians were easily swayed by prophecies and signs.
This truly shows how although signs were a large contributor to the downfall of the Indians, they were not the cause of defeat. It would be interesting to look at more factors that played into the complete makeup of the (Spaniards) new world.
I really like the way you approached this post. I did realize that the Spaniards were the ones with the power, but I didn't think to reframe the question even though it's important to do that to recognize the differing power dynamics. Montezuma is a useful example concerning his own actions and how they were influenced by the signs and so without those signs he didn't really think to treat the Spaniards as the threat they were. I also think that language is another contributing factor to the defeat of the "Indians" because it furthered the cultural divide and made it harder for the "Indians" to understand the Spaniards' motives.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed this post, but I was wondering if you could elaborate on the sentence "I believe that this difference is important since there was no ulterior motive for the Indians to concede their power to the Spaniards by simply following their beliefs."?
ReplyDeletePersonally, when I was reading Todorov's words, I did not pick up other ways that the Indians desired to give power to the Spaniards. It appeared to me that there was no direct intention by the Indians for their defeat, however they were also not taking part in many actions to oppose the rule of Columbus or Cortes. Since their society places rituals and prophecies at the highest rung, they were so constructed to their social structure that they conceded their power without realizing it.
DeleteI appreciate the way in which you approach this blog post. Your sentiments seem to reflect some of the frustration that I was feeling with this question too. I agree, in summery, that the signs played a role, but were not The sole role. One thing that I would like for you to elaborate on more though is when you say " it is interesting to take the “control” out of defeat". I think it is a really interesting idea that gets doesn't get the time that it deserves. But overall, good post!
ReplyDelete