The hubris with which the Europeans interact in various ways with the natives is astonishing. Although Cortez's interactions with Montezuma are tempered (at least in Bernal's and partly in Cortez's accounts) with a great degree of respect for the man himself and with the advancement and beauty of his civilization, when it comes to religion, Cortez and his entourage see no problem with attempting to impose christianity on an already religious nation. On the other hand, Columbus' renaming and kidnapping of natives in the name of nationalism somehow seems worse.
Secondly, in Bernal's and Cortez's accounts, as well as in Vespucci, a great deal of text is expended to catalog details about the exotic nature of all the natives and how they live, whether they live in apparent savagery like Vespucci's poisoners, Columbus' cannibals, or the civilized marvels of the Mexicans. The difference between Bernal's accounts and Vespucci/Columbus are interesting: Bernal and Cortez approach Montezuma as approximate equals, even going so far as to try and impress him and his generals; Columbus and Vespucci catalog the people they see as exotics curiousitys. Even when reading Montaigne's "On Cannibals", this "exoticization" can be seen underneath his supposed tone of cultural relativism.
1 comment:
I agree with you, the fact that Columbus thought it was okay for him to kidnapp people because he felt they "should" learn HIS languange to tell "him" what was in the area,shows his lack of respect. One could say that he felt superior, he didn't want to take the time to learn "their" language.
Bernal and Cortes' approach was a little bit easier to handle, but they did have a purpose in mind.
Post a Comment