Being someone who has studied culture most of
their life, especially Latino culture being a Spanish minor and all, I tended
to focused on the cultural aspects of these readings and how the
misinterpretations and lack of understanding caused the massacre of the Aztec
peoples by the Spanish.
"The entry of the Spaniards into Tenochtitlan on November 8, 1519 was one of the quintessential moments of world history. It represents the encounter and clash of worlds that until that moment had developed in ignorance of each other" (Schwartz, 127).
This quote reminded me of the list made in class on Tuesday: the similarities and the differences between the Aztec and the Spanish. Here is that list:
Similarities:
· Military organization
· Religious motivations
· Large network of
alliances
· Regional powers
· Wealth
· Monarchal
power/Absolutists
Differences:
· Religious practices
· Technology/medicine
· Resource use
· Cultural frameworks
· Political arrangements
· Advancements in
industry
We all thought that our list would consist
mostly of differences given our basic knowledge of both cultures, however we
discovered more similarities between the two groups than differences. This is
no doubt how the Spanish thought when they first encountered the Aztec capital
of Tenochtitlan. (Not to completely single out the Spaniards, but they have a
track record of not being accepting of other cultures).
Especially considering what happened at the Aztec sacred festival when the Spanish were horrified by the rituals and slaughtered the participants in a panic.
Considering all these similarities, especially
in the political sense, how did diplomatic relations between the two cause such
a gruesome end for the Aztecs? I’ll tell you why: Cortes.
Cortes is no diplomat. His only goal was to gain wealth for the crown and ultimately gain a higher social status. The Governor of Cuba, Diego Velazquez, charged him to lead an expedition to discover more land and resources. After reading about Cortes’ “expedition” I strongly believe he was on more of a military conquest than an expedition. All of this actions he took were taken in the state of mind of a military leader, not that of a diplomat.
Cortes knew everything about the citizens of
Tenochtitlan thanks to the help of local guides and interpreters. Even with
this knowledge, Cortes wasn’t diplomatic in the least. He didn’t even try to
reason with the Aztec people. He immediately exploited their weaknesses and
conquered.
I personally think that Cortes and Spain could
have gained enormously from diplomatic relations with the Aztec empire.
However, given Spain’s history, that alliance wouldn’t have lasted long.
Amongst all my rambling, I’m trying to bring
up the point that cultural understanding is essential and that the lack of
diplomacy displayed by Cortes proved to be a major barrier in ever acquiring
diplomatic relations with the Aztecs.
Based on my understanding, Cortes was a shrewd strategist and a somewhat successful diplomat in the beginning. It was very beneficial to the Spanish cause that they had more than one diplomat for translating the Maya and Aztec dialects. Had the translators not been there, the road to Tenochtitlan would have been far more difficult if not impossible. Based on my readings of Russell, initial contact with the natives was violent yes, but it was also one of discovery and learning. The Mexico Reader has a great excerpt of the Spanish reaction to their first sighting of Tenochtitlan. Needless to say, they were left absolutely speechless. This was possible because each relatively peaceful visit to village deeper into the center of Mexico were chock full of tales and rumors of a great city on a lake.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with the notion that Cortes was out for the glory and wealth. Had I been Spanish at the time, quite frankly, I would have felt the exact same way if that was my vision of what is determined as success. But I also think there were more peaceful and religious reasons for the expedition as well. I do believe that the Spanish wanted to convert the Aztecs to Christianity (whether by force or peaceful means). Having recently defeated the Muslims in Granada, I'm sure this sentiment existed. Also connecting with the story of the Muslim tradition in Iberia was the thirst for knowledge. The Spanish were genuinely interested in learning about the cultures they came across. Sure, it might have been reasons for exploitation but it was an intellectual pursuit nonetheless.
Lastly, I am fairly intrigued by the idea that you bring up for an Aztec and Spanish alliance. Had the Aztecs been left alone, there's not telling how much stronger their empire could have become. But the pestilence brought upon by outbreaks of smallpox would have severely imbalanced the diplomatic ties between the two nations. If you know anything about Sino relations with the west, the Qing Dynasty was initially in a better bargaining position over the European nations but after a string of internal strife, rebellion, and an addiction to opium, the balance of power quickly shifted and the Qing Dynasty became a pawn of a large number of powers. I digress but I couldn't help find parallels and the potential for something very similar occurring in the Aztec Empire.
Overall, I think you give an effective recap of the points we discussed in class and good arguments for your view point. I'd really have enjoyed seeing a deeper exploration on a potential Aztec and Spanish alliance. That would have been pretty cool to see analyzed and discussed.
Thanks for posting the list. It helps to have that reminder especially since that was one of the most important things we talked about last week, in my opinion. It was an extreme eye opener for me. But I appreciate how you focus on Cortes being more of a military minded thinker rather than a diplomatic thinker. It describes why he made some of the moves that he made. I think it Mike's post he also brought in some of these ideas, when describing all of the weaponry Cortes took with him as he prepared to make his expedition. I think Cortes played a key role in not making things go well for the Aztecs, but also think there were other fears and preconceived ideas that many of the other Spanish had, that were with him, which contributed to the demise of the Aztec empire.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteGreat summary of the last week! It's really interesting to get a point of view from someone who has studied the culture more than myself.
I agree that it was interesting to compose the lists in class and see that, in reality, there are more similarities than differences. I think this also brings up an interesting point that these two cultures who were essentially on opposite sides of the world and had never had any interaction with each other could grow to be so similar. I think that would be an interesting topic to explore if we had more than a single semester.
As for your argument that Cortez was a horrific diplomat, I think I might disagree somewhat. Schwartz mentions several times through the primary sources that the men acted out against the Aztecs when Cortez specifically told them to be peaceful. Cortez came not just to kill and plunder, but also to discover, settle and convert. Sure, the massacres were extreme and violent and unnecessary, but to say that he was the sole problem and didn’t have a diplomatic bone in his body I think is to ignore some of his finer points.
All that being said, I do believe the main goal in the conquest was, in fact, conquest, and the Spaniards were willing to kill as many as it took to achieve that goal. But if that were the only goal, then, like I said in last week’s response to Mike, wouldn’t it have been easier and less expensive to just enter into every city, guns and cannons drawn, and to violently take over the city? They could have skipped all the niceties of trading and gift giving and learning the culture and instead, killed those who opposed them, taken their wealth and their goods, sent it to the king, and moved on to the next city.
I have always loved history classes and this class is proving to hold my interest just like the others. I can't help but look at history from a psychological and sociological view. I am always very frustrated reading documents, primary or secondary, being unable to really get inside the heads of each of the parties involved. I always am curious to know WHY something happened and find it hard to just take the facts at face value. After reading Townsend's article I am relieved to see her break down the "God" perspective of the Spaniards but still find it frustrating that there is no definite answer given.
DeleteI agree with Emily when she says Cortes was no dipolmat. The man was able to disobey the Spanish Governer in charge and make his way all the way through Mexico by minupulating and using anyone or anything that was willing to help or too scared to oppose him. I realize that he was away from Tenochtitlan for a period of time and out of control of his men but I find it hard to believe he would be unable to stop them from harming the Aztecs if he didn't want them harmed. I know he is only one man but I believe he was a very powerful man. How can one argue about the power and brutality of a man then turn around and say he had a "good" (in this case diplomatic) side? I believe Cortes had his men doing what he wanted done at least 80% of the time. The Spanish were smart, so were the Aztecs. Both smart enough to know that fighting, killing, and demolishing one another was not the only way out of their curious discovery of one another. I think the Aztecs were wise and were trying to learn about/from the Spaniards. The reason they were killed off is because they chose a more curious peacful style of learning where the Spanish were fearful of what they did not understand and chose to brutally take over rather than forming a diplomatice relationship with the Aztecs.
I guess I can wish all day and night that there was more information about these people and this time period but I will most certianly never know for sure the answers to all of my questions.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI also tend to focus on the cultural sides (Spanish major). The Spaniards weren't really accepting of other peoples cultures or religions. I like how you pointed out the Spaniards were horrified by the rituals done by the Aztecs and in return they slaughtered many, showing that they were quiet similar after all.
ReplyDeleteThe list that you compiled allowed me to recollect on what we talked about in class last week, thank you! I couldn't agree more with your statement on Cortes being a large part of the deadly Spanish and Aztec encounter. Cortes was indeed no diplomat and I think he proved that in his success of eliminating the Aztec's and their culture. I believe the Aztecs and the Spanish could have thrived off of each others resources; both were smart and both knew how to cultivate their surroundings. I wonder though, as you said, how long that would have lasted. It's tough to see this idea of imperialism that Cortes and the Spanish had to conquer and make everything Spanish when they could have worked together with the Aztecs and possibly develop an even more successful, not stemmed from violence, empire.
ReplyDeleteI think the list gives a good picture on why things happened the way they did. You have two different cultures yet they are both successful in the way they go about life. I was really surprised in the amount of similarities as well. I believe the similarities show why there was a desire for one side to come out on top due to the fact that they were both seen as powerful forces. I find it similar to the storyline of this year’s Super Bowl between the broncos, the best offensive team, and the Seahawks, a fierce defensive team. Unfortunately the Spanish were less willing to understand how the Aztecs approached their lifestyle and were more focused on conquering the land. One of the few but biggest problems for the Aztecs was the advancement of Spanish weaponry compared to their own. This along with the spread of diseases, specifically Small pox was a major blow to the natives. I think the problem with Cortes was that he was set on making his trip a success and he wasn’t going to quit until he achieved recognition for what he had accomplished. The Spanish may have gone through Public relation stunts via gift exchanging but I believe their main purpose was to conquer the land and wealth. It’s unfortunate it had to be one or the other but I believe that the Spanish weren’t willing to take the chance on the major differences on the list due to the similarities of the two cultures.
ReplyDelete