Don't Assume it's the Shoes

Right now I am lying on a rug in SOC with a group of friends. The entirety of the Freshman class
has been forced from their homes due to yet another fire drill. Basically, this seems like a wonderful
time to reflect on the week. 

Today, I am going to tell you a story about Ron. 

It was Wednesday. I stuffed my backpack full with my textbooks, notebooks, computer, and all the
necessary chargers and cords. I then walked down Nebraska and found my way to the
Tenleytown Library. Settled at a table on the second floor next to the ceiling high windows overlooking
the street, I started the slow process of working my way through my extensive to-do list.
Every now and then, I would look up from the computer and out the window. It was through that
window that I saw Ron. A pretty obvious homeless man sitting outside in an old office chair across
from a woman with bright pink acrylics. Look closer at the gentleman, I noticed he wasn’t wearing
any shoes. Considering it was only about forty degrees out, I found this quite alarming. I turned back to
my computer screen. A minute later, I looked out the window, saw the barefeet, took a sip of coffee, and
looked back at my bright computer screen. This process was repeated about half a dozen times until
I finally couldn’t take it anymore, and I got ready to pack up my belongings and go talk to the man.
Unfortunately, by the time I reached this initiative the gentleman had left. However, when thirty minutes
elapsed and I still couldn’t stop thinking about the barefeet, I decided to go down and ask the woman
with the bright pink acrylics about him. She informed me that he was relaxing about five feet away
under the tarp/makeshift house to my left and that his name was Ron. I went over with the woman
with the pink acrylics (I regretfully did not catch her name) and the conversation went roughly like this:

Me: “Good afternoon Ron, my name is Xandra. I noticed you weren’t wearing any shoes, so I was
wondering if you would allow me to buy you a pair?”

Ron: “I don’t need any, I have a whole bed of shoes”

The woman: “Where were you going to buy them from?”

Me: “The Target since it is right over there”

Ron: “Oh well, I would have to get special shoes from a doctor anyway, those shoes would just hurt
my feet” 

I then thanked Ron and the woman for their time, wished them a good day, gave the woman five bucks,
and went back into the library to continue working.

I am so intensely thankful for situations like these which pop me out of my bubble and cause me to
question my naivety and ignorance. I like to think that I interact with others always under the
understanding that they have a story deeper than a person can read on the surface. Yet, here I was
assuming I know a person’s problem and the way to solve it simply by looking. It is so easy to fall into
that trap of presumptuous altruism, and it is unfortunately a manner in which the U.S. as a whole has
had the habit of interacting with other countries (usually also with the added factor of self-interest).
This arrogant mindset of “knowing best” is the same frame of mind which prevents people from gaining
a true understanding of the “other” which often paves the way for both intentional and unintentional
violence as we are currently learning about through Conquest of America. How to prevent this and
keep your presumptions in check? I would personally advocate for a system of communication in
which the first step is to consciously try to recognize your own bias and preconceptions, assume that
they are wrong, and then test it by asking the proper questions. For instance, my conversation with Ron
might have been much more productive if I had begun by saying something like this:

“Hello Ron, my name is Xandra. I noticed you were not wearing shoes. Can I ask why?” 

Pending on the answer, maybe my next question would do something like this:

“I am a college student with pretty low funds, but is there anything you would want me to do to help?”

Hooray for casual Wednesday bubble bursting.

Is there such thing as a "just" war ?

During class on Thursday, I found myself to be bothered by how the concept of just war was excluded from the conversation. I did not raise my hand to talk about it so I did not help that case, however, I got thinking. The debate of whether a just war can even exist is something so complex that a debate could last forever. It has been circulating my mind and I think I have come to some personal opinion. Going back to the general concept of perspective, I feel the determination of what contributes to a just war is dependent on who is speaking. Similar to how we couldn’t praise Montezuma for abiding by his culture while completely condemning Columbus for doing the same, with the only difference being that Montezuma became the victim and Columbus did not. In the case of war, one side may see it as a “just” experience simply because they were victorious in the fight. 

However, I do think some general qualities could be applied to a “just” war. Relating to its morality and representation of democracy. There are scenarios in which the perspective dictates whether something appears to be good or evil, however, I believe there are some situations that are objectively moral and good. For example, if the Spanish conquest of the Americas is to be considered a war, it could be considered moral from the Spaniards that felt entitled to the land. Conversely, the Indians could refer to the conquest as immoral since it was based on discrimination and developing a hierarchy. Additionally, the word “war” has violent and partisan connotations to it that adds further contradiction between both “just” and “war”. 

This is a just a couple thoughts I’ve been having, I would love to hear what some other viewpoints are on this issue of the existence of a “just” war.

"Putting His Desire to Execution": The Dehumanization of Women of the "Other" Reflection 11

Operating in the mindset of superiority, robs one of experiencing the fullness of the beauties of life. It prevents one from being able to unpack their preconceived assumptions based on idea that they themselves believe to be correct, and see things from another perspective. Superiority undervalues the true essence of the “other”. Todorov highlights the maltreatment of the indigenous women by the Spaniards. One of the quotes that really struck and disturbed me was when the European described his encounter with an Indigenous women as him putting “his desire to execution” (49). This encouraged the mindset of the European feeling like they have the right to someone else’s body because of their superiority, which leads to pure dehumanization. It also makes me think of my experience in India being apart of the”other”.

During my time in India, I quickly learned that in Indian society women from the West Indies or Africa are stereotyped negatively; which becomes a blanketed opportunity for negative generalizations against women of African descent. The negative generalization comes from the unfortunate trend of some black female students being forced to succumb to prostitution or escorting as a means for survival. It is not because they do not desire to work and make their own income, but it’s because legally in India, it is illegal for a student to work if they are not an Indian National. This puts international students in a bind, especially if they come from a low-income socioeconomic background. However, this is not the case for all black women in India, but because it is a trend, many black women are subjected to the effects of these negative assumptions. I remember sitting in my cab, heading home from my apprenticeship and having a driver ask me if he can buy sex from me, or many men just assuming that I would be willing to sleep with them because of I am black. It was a very emotionally and mentally draining experience because I was not very supported in these situations. My only defense was a strong “NO”, which history and current times has proven doesn’t suffice in particular situations. I just count myself one of the lucky ones. The maltreatment of the indigenous women during the colonization of the Americas began a trend that continues to have a ripple effect on minority women, and the dehumanization of them

Blog Post #11: Signs don't always translate

I think there are various reasons why the "Indians" were defeated, but I do think signs played a role in their defeat. The Aztecs losing their connection with their gods contributed to this as they didn't have the signs to understand the threat that the Spaniards posed to them. Todorov recognizes this disconnect on page 62, writing that the Aztecs "describe the beginning of their own end as a silence that falls: the gods no longer speak to them." The Aztecs used signs from the gods as a way of processing and understanding the world around them and without that they were at a loss to comprehend anything new that arose, an example being the presence of the Spaniards.

Additionally, the cultural divide meant signs didn't transfer as well between the Spaniards and the "Indians." The language divide provided a barrier so that different cultural expressions didn't transfer, meaning the "Indians" didn't understand the Spaniards intentions to conquer them. The Aztecs were also already oppressive of the "Indians" in the region, so the Spaniards were actually first seen "as a lesser evil" (58). It wasn't recognized that the Spaniards were different and actually worse than the Aztecs because the signs simply didn't translate. 

Montezuma's actions were also likely a result of the cultural divide. We can't be sure exactly what was going on in his head and what his reasoning of his actions were, but it's clear that it didn't really occur to him to engage with the Spaniards in discussions. Montezuma was simply following Aztec culture by remaining unseen and containing information about the Spaniards. If the signs were different and he had engaged with them it is possible for there to have been less bloodshed. The language barrier also plays in the Aztecs' interaction with the Spaniards as they have multiple translators, but still don't fully understand each other because of the differing cultures. The Aztecs' language very much centered around signs, so it was hard to translate the actions and intentions of the Spaniards because they did not have the same understanding of signs.

It is clear that the importance of signs in Aztec and "Indian" culture did not allow for ample interpretation of the Spaniards presence and intentions, which certainly contributed to their downfall.

The excuses you give your grandparents

In Monday's class, J. L. and A.V.M.(Initialed for sake of animosity in case of future opinionated employers hunting for issues) brought up the argument that just like for Montezuma, it can be argued that the Spaniards are victims of their culture. Just as J. L. mentioned themselves, this perspective is arguable solely depending on one's perspective. As I was leaning back in my gray mesh chair, I tried to figure out why that argument sounded so familiar. It was then that I realized this is the same strain of argument I use on my grandparents and other people of older age all the time. How many times have you heard someone tell you that so and so are too old to change their views, so why bother; let them be in peace? This is the foundational argument I use to be able to feel comfortable in maintaining a relationship with my own highly conservative grandparents.
*Disclaimer: I truly love my grandparents. I am thankful to have them in my life. They have shaped me in innumerable ways, and I will forever treasure them*
Now certain differences in opinion are perfectly reasonable. To continue with my example, I love discussions with my grandparents concerning differing opinions in politics, and I can even go so far as saying, in their essence if not the means, I agree with many of their opinions. Yet, then there are their opinions on topics including climate change, the LGBT community, and issues over immigration which I find completely offensive. If it were my peers expressing those opinions, I would be arguing with them and confidently advocating for myself. Why don't I do the same in the presence of my grandparents? Because I convince myself that I shouldn't take their opinions personally since they are just results of their age and time, and since they are just 'victims' to their 'culture' they will not change, so the only thing that will come from me arguing is ruining relationships for my family. Obviously the situation is slightly for complicated than this, but the situation brings about certain questions that I think are important to wrestle with including:
1) Is it moral to grant people excuses based on their culture/past?
2) Is there really any benefit in understanding the person's situation/culture/past behind their opinions?
3) Is it appropriate to strong arm people to "modern" day standards despite their cultural norms?
By answering these questions, I find it easier to wrestle with the class questions if we can categorize the Spaniards or Montezuma as mere victims to their circumstance.

Did the Spaniards defeat the Indians by means of signs?

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.

Mixed Signals

To answer the blog question, I do believe that a large part of the Spaniard's victory resulted from their superior command of signs. Although this seems like a confusing premise at first, since the conflict was so focused around outright violence, disease, etc, the Spaniard's strongest advantage may well have been their literacy and capacity to manipulate the Natives' impressions. I think this advantage can be most easily broken down in terms of a constructivist's "blank slate" approach to new social situations.

With regard to the interactions between the Spaniards and Natives, the Spaniards have already had experiences meeting and introducing their civilizational qualities(forced conversion, teaching language, cultural practices, etc) to entirely foreign groups of people, and therefore to some extent had the ability to use this experience in dictating their chain of actions and responses in this particular situation with the Natives.

On the other hand, Montezuma and his people were hit with a culture shock of sorts when the Spaniards initiated contact. Another element to the whole interaction was that the Spaniards harbored a significant amount of ulterior motive that they knew through practice how to navigate and manipulate Natives through. Conversely, the Natives had no significant other motive than their survival and preservation. The argument could be made that the Natives, cautious of the Spaniards, wanted to advance their own interests in expelling or defending against the onslaught of Cortes and his crew, however the intent of the Natives was still very surface level, causing them to pay no mind to the possibility or reason for the Spaniards to manipulate their perception.

These arguments about the various constructivist backgrounds of each party show a clear advantage on the part of the Spaniards just simply due to situational experience and pre-existing knowledge allowing them to take a greater command of the "first contact".