History
Texts used:
Clendinnen, Inga, “Fierce and Unnatural Cruelty”: Cortes and the Conquest of Mexico”, representations, No 33, 1991, pp. 65-100.
Windschuttle, Keith, selections from “Omnipotence of signs: Semiotics and the conquest of America”, from, the Killing of History: how literary critics and social theorists are murdering our past, Macleay, Paddington, 1994. Pp. 39-44, 51-59, 65-70.
Critique:
Keith Windshuttle and Inga Clendinnen wrote articles illustrating their points of view about why and how the Spanish managed such a successful conquest of Tenochtitlan. Windschuttle analyses the ideas presented by Todorov and Clendinnen. Windschuttle finds that Todorov is making an inscere attempt to take the moral high ground by defending the dead natives from 500 years ago. Clendinnen makes a balanced argument from both the Aztec and Spanish empires perspectives given the limited sources available.
Both Tondonov and Clendinnen, agree upon several factors which contributed to the fall of Tenochtitlan. The technology gap between the Spanish and Aztec Empires provided a large advantage for the Spaniards when fighting. Compiling on this Cortez was able to implement a warfare strategy to suit his advanced weaponry. Both writers also agree that there was a cultural background to fighting within the Aztec empire however; both believe this influenced the final outcome differently. Clendinnen suggested that as the fighting went on, the Aztec warriors adapted to the style of fighting used by the Spanish, a change from their warrior culture. This is because they began to dodge and take cover from enemy fire. Windschuttle believes however, that the technology gap, political relations and epidemics throughout the region are just as important in explaining the success of the Spanish conquest against the Aztec empire.
Both readings recognise a cultural difference which contributes to the success of the Spaniards. Todonov suggests that the Spanish empire is a massacre society, hence
Clendinnen, Inga, “Fierce and Unnatural Cruelty”: Cortes and the Conquest of Mexico”, representations, No 33, 1991, pp. 65-100.
Windschuttle, Keith, selections from “Omnipotence of signs: Semiotics and the conquest of America”, from, the Killing of History: how literary critics and social theorists are murdering our past, Macleay, Paddington, 1994. Pp. 39-44, 51-59, 65-70.
Critique:
Keith Windshuttle and Inga Clendinnen wrote articles illustrating their points of view about why and how the Spanish managed such a successful conquest of Tenochtitlan. Windschuttle analyses the ideas presented by Todorov and Clendinnen. Windschuttle finds that Todorov is making an inscere attempt to take the moral high ground by defending the dead natives from 500 years ago. Clendinnen makes a balanced argument from both the Aztec and Spanish empires perspectives given the limited sources available.
Both Tondonov and Clendinnen, agree upon several factors which contributed to the fall of Tenochtitlan. The technology gap between the Spanish and Aztec Empires provided a large advantage for the Spaniards when fighting. Compiling on this Cortez was able to implement a warfare strategy to suit his advanced weaponry. Both writers also agree that there was a cultural background to fighting within the Aztec empire however; both believe this influenced the final outcome differently. Clendinnen suggested that as the fighting went on, the Aztec warriors adapted to the style of fighting used by the Spanish, a change from their warrior culture. This is because they began to dodge and take cover from enemy fire. Windschuttle believes however, that the technology gap, political relations and epidemics throughout the region are just as important in explaining the success of the Spanish conquest against the Aztec empire.
Both readings recognise a cultural difference which contributes to the success of the Spaniards. Todonov suggests that the Spanish empire is a massacre society, hence