Pedagogy of the past
This week I re-read some literature on exploration and colonization. For some reason (one I haven’t been able to really pinpoint), I have been increasingly interested in this topic. My guess is that I'm intrigued because I like reading "history," in order to learn "facts" about the past, or perhaps a way to link the present to the past and vice versa. Regardless of the reasons, reading in-depth about these accounts makes me revisit the past without being an actual participant, for reading reminds me that it all is a cycle and that the past is the present and paradoxically the future.This week I wont really go in-depth about the readings, since I'm still processing...but here is a brief summary/commentary on what I found intriguing and the link they all share, RELIGION, hopefully if you haven’t read them...maybe you'll check them out after this.
Reminiscent to the great North African: Ibn Batuta--Marco Polo, Montaigne and Heredotuos, all
conform to the label placed on them, that of explorers. Just like Ibn Batuta, who in 1325 became the first to extensively document sub-Saharan African (I really dislike this term, its such a construct, not to mention racially charged) societies before the boom of Colonization and slavery, so too was Marco Polo with his inscriptions
of mostly unknown cultures in the west.
Although Marco Polo was exploring "new worlds,” one notices
preconceived notions about the places he visits as he states that “The
inhabitants are idolaters, and are a most brutish and savage race,
having heads, eyes and teeth resembling those of the canine species…
they kill and eat” [281]. Marco Polo’s fixed ideas of non-human or
sub-human towards the populations he encounters has a clear defined
reason: religion. As stated in Leviticus, the only way to not be a
heathen was to follow strict dietary restrictions and to beware of
idolatry, which is what Marco Polo documents when he encounters a
different group of people along his voyage. His thinking process is
apparent as he writes down whether or not the inhabitants worship
idols, juxtaposed to their dietary habits. Therefore, the idea that a
person would eat another person was an automatic sin and for Marco
Polo, such behavior was sub-human. This is made clear by his attitudes
towards the natives.
Montaigne, however takes a different approach, he deconstructs
religion and has no clear basis for judgment other than intolerance.
The objectivity used in his thought processes, like Marco Polo, is
also apparent in his writing. Contraire to Marco Polo, he humanizes
the non-European populations and condemns the Europeans for their
backward way of thinking. He argues that the closeness to nature,
which the natives seem to have, is far better then the artificially
created world of science and art of the European. He also seems to
renounce the Leviticus code of holiness by accepting the fact natives
take part in certain rituals as a form of honor not for the sake of
killing, which is what the Europeans did when they took part in
cannibalism. Montaigne shows an early form of cultural relativism
that seemed to lack in many Christian cultures in the era of
exploration and colonialism.
The impression from Columbus’ accounts brought insights to the well-known and similarly elusive admiral. For his ideas and beliefs came across as he proceeded to “discover” the new world. The initial contact between Columbus and the Indigenous, much like Marco Polo, was seen through the eye of religion. The preconceived notion regarding what was “normal” and not, was displayed by Columbus’ regard and treatment of the natives. So it is obvious that Religion played a mayor role in the categorization of the indigenous and helped propagate negative European sentiments of natives and further establish a racial cast system.
The surprising side of Columbus was his love of nature. The description of certain trees, fruits and animals highlight a man keen on detail as he compares the unique beauty of the islands and downgrades that of Spain. The most interesting part of his accounts is that fact that he makes certain concession to the “new world” when it comes to its fauna and flora, seemingly not having any biases, but in regard to the natives he does not, thus displaying a duplicitous character.
Cortez is the other interesting figure in the conquest. It seems that the conquest of New Spain occurred at an interesting point in time, since the natives had been given signs of the arrival of certain Gods. Resultantly the Spanish success was due to religion, not the catholic faith, but the Mexica. It is often stated that Catholicism was the religion that gave reason for the conquest, but without the initial acceptance by the indigenous, the events that gave rise to the conquest would not have occurred. With Tenochtitlan as the prize along with Moctezuma, Cortez was relentless as he traversed the territory –devastating and converting the indigenous population. And finally battling and gaining the upper hand by manipulating the indigenous--using the Catholic faith and destroying an empire.
{To piggyback on this entry, I will introduce-- Bartolomeo De Las Casas: Lets talk about this interesting character in OUR colonized history.
Why is he so LOVED by many and HATED by others...
Lets discuss the effect this one man had in why YOU and I are HERE today. By “here” I mean this country, Hemisphere, this language, this present, this past, this future, this lifestyle, this ignorance, this oppression, this self-hate, this 500 year nightmare...}
The fact that one man dictated OUR trajectory is mind-blowing; is it not? What do you think about Bartolomeo De LAs Casas?
Tune in for my analysis on his life and his personal journal accounts...
posted by Henry A. Obispo @ 12:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home