Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Blog #13: What can signs do for you?


In responding to Todorov’s question as to the extent to which signs were a means by which the Spaniards conquered the Aztecs, it is important to note two possible extremes and their level of interconnectedness in order to decipher the reasons as to why his argument is true, and how signs did in fact play a key role in this situation.

Before explaining these extremes, there are assumptions that need to be understood. The first, and most obvious is the Aztec’s dependency on signs, especially during times of uncertainty. Every natural occurrence was interpreted, bad omens were taken extremely seriously, and material objects (like religious idols) help significant value because of what they symbolized. Because of this, the natives essentially believed that all events including births, wars, and deaths were pre-determined and a result of the will of the gods. They believed themselves to be helpless without a sign to determine their responsive course of action. This is where is gets complicated.

One extreme is that the Spaniards were unresponsive and unconcerned with this seemingly strange obsession, and they continued their conquest through means that they understood, such as making decisions based on communication through men and the world as a whole. Of course, the Aztecs were at a disadvantage because they had no communication with the rest of the world, nor did they really need it. If this were the case, then it is also possible that at the same time the Aztecs interpreted no sign indicating the need for rebellion. The result would be dissipated hope, and a higher chance of submission to the Spaniards. While it could be possible that these circumstances just happened to occur in favor of the Spaniards, another possibility exists on the opposite side of the spectrum.

The Spaniards also could have quickly recognized the importance of signs to the Aztecs and manipulated their system to east the difficulty in conquering them. This is a possible option as Todorov gives various examples of the observations that were made by the Spaniards about the Aztecs. This is why they chose to defame their places of worship by destroying their idols and morally victimizing these people, since they were hesitant to fight back without affirmation from the gods.

I think that these two extremes are intertwined and although the Spaniards may not have fully understood the purpose of symbolism and omens, simply coexisting with the Aztecs would have indicated the significance of these practices and beliefs. However, since this was a time of panic and uncertainty, the Aztecs spent a lot of time desperately searching for guidance, but found none. This replaced time that could have been used to plan and execute a rebellion. The lack of communication, and frequent misinterpretation of communication were also contributing factors to the way in which signs played an important role in this conquest. Todorov describes instances in which an action, or gesture signaled contrasting meanings which only fueled the fire.

While it is probably a combination of superior technology, immunity to certain diseases, experience, and miscommunication, I completely agree that the manipulation and unfortunate outcome of the interpretation of signs was a crucial factor by which the Spaniards were able to defeat the Aztecs. So far, I’ve enjoyed the book and Todorov’s interesting arguments. I’m looking forwards to seeing what’s next.


Photo Credit: theabysmal.wordpress.com

No comments:

Post a Comment