Ladies and gentlemen! The prosecution has made a strong case, to be sure. Yes, they have managed to clearly define Dona Marina as a defector, an informant, a traitor to her people. These accusations are based in fact. However, this trial is for the purpose of drawing Dona Marina as a traitor. No, this trial is to answer the question: was Dona Marina essential and integral in herself to the downfall of the Aztec Empire? Once we have fleshed out the true question, the answer reveals itself to be a resounding no.
Remember, Dona Marina (if we may excise the frankly offensive name that the prosecution would have you identify her as) had no choice in becoming a translator. It was translate, or die - rather, be raped and then die. Again, there were myriad Natives in the area with extensive knowledge of Aztec culture; surely another translator would be found, and the same issues wrought in the Aztec lands, with the notable difference that Dona Marina would be dead. Indeed, the Spanish would eventually have Nahuatl speakers in their party; they could have served the same role. Again, the zeal that Dona Marina would eventually take to her role identifies her as a traitor. But she was not integral - her role would have been taken on by someone anyway. Dona Marina did not bring anything special to her role.
And what of the claims by the prosecution that she did bring something extra? Merely examine the language that their evidence contains, which they base this claim around. You will see that the supposed extraordinary benefits that Dona Marina brought to the Spanish efforts - translating actions as well as words? Talking to Montezuma on her own initiative, when he was already locked in his own bedroom by Spanish soldiers? - and it is clear that any benefits were hardly tangible, let alone campaign-altering. Again, members of the jury, ask yourself: What did Dona Marina do that another would not have? What benefit did Dona Marina have that was only native to herself, and not universal? She had none - any Indian of the area could have interpreted the ways of their Aztec oppressors. If Dona Marina brought nothing individual to herself that tangibly impacted the campaign - well, the only course is to declare Dona Marina of being innocent of the charges of "being integral to the dominion of the Aztecs".
Taking a devil's advocate perspective, I will disagree with your argument that Dona Marina could have been replaced by just anyone. In your post you fail to acknowledge at all the fact that the relationship between Dona Marina and Cortés was not just that of a translator and one who is forcing translation. Because of the nature of the relationship between Dona Marina and Cortés, the role of translator evolved and became something much more than that. She converted to the Spanish mentality and gave Cortés a highly valuable insight into the inner workings of the Aztec way of life. It is also clear that because of Cortés' understanding of the culture he was far more successful in destroying it. For a group of people who's way of life is, obviously, influenced heavily by their specific culture, the help that Dona Marina gave to Cortés played an integral roll in the destruction of the Aztecs. While this may not be tangible as you say, it remains a fact of history that is valid and holds weight.
ReplyDeleteWell, all historical facts hold weight. But how MUCH weight is also an important historical modifier. Once again, there were a very large quantity of people who hated the Aztecs and who would eventually march on Tenochtitlan alongside Spaniards. I am as positive as I can rationally be that Dona Marina was the FIRST choice, chronologically, to serve as interpreter for Cortes - not the only one - and that another person could have been found who would provide cultural translations as well. The fact that Dona Marina did an excellent job does not prove that she was the only one for the job; she could have been replaced by many Indians which hated the Aztecs, their sacrificial tendencies, and their harsh taxes, and would be willing to dance with a Spanish devil instead of the one they knew. There were thousands of options - and surely at least a few dozen with sufficient fire to step up and do a Dona Marina-level job.
ReplyDeleteYou state at the very beginning of the comment above that it's about how much weight these historica facts have. And you seem to be arguing that the relationship between Don Marina and Cortés doesn't hold enough weight to be taken into account. I only have one question: do you think that the relationship between Don Marina and Cortés played any sort of influential role in the destruction of the Aztec people at all, even in the slightest?
ReplyDelete