According to Merriam-Webster, ambivalence is having simultaneous and contradictory attitudes or feelings, toward an object, person or action, or having uncertainty as to which approach to follow.
I believe that this book is called Ambivalent Conquests because it describes the conquest from both sides, of the Spaniards and of the Mayas, and shows the indecision and uncertainty that both groups were faced with during their encounters with each other. For example, as the Spanish were sailing along the coast line, they were never sure what kind of greeting they would receive, or what behavior was appropriate. At one point, they believed that it would be alright to land and fill their casks with water because they had no idea that water was a scarce resource throughout the peninsula (pg. 9). The Spanish were faced with a dilemma when the Indians approached them, because if they were ambushed or attacked again they would risk losing more men.
Also, among the Indians there was a fair share of indecision. While some groups would attack the Spanish when they landed, others would agree to the demands of the Spanish as long as they were manageable (pg. 16). Others, such as the Indians of Cozumel, eventually offered cooperation which gave them a sense of immunity in-between all of the other Indian warfare (pg. 17).
There were many difficult and uncertain choices during the conquest, among the native people and among the Spanish as the events leading up to a decision or an alliance where never simple.
I really like that you put the definition of ambivalence before you started. I also agree that there is ambivalence on both the Spanish and the Indians sides. I d not feel that it could possibly only be from one side. Both sides had so much to gain and loose upon trusting each other and making this huge change. Going into this conquest, the Spanish knew very little of what to expect. They knew they were going to encounter trouble-gaining power; after gaining that power, they were going to find difficulties keeping it. It was honestly the luck of the draw. They were lucky enough to find people whose civilizations were already falling. They could have arrived during a different time where the Indians didn't have as much uncertainty about their beliefs and lifestyle and it would have been a lot more difficult to conquer. Which is why there was also so much ambivalence from the Indian group because they were unsure if they should trust the ways that they had been living for years, or to try something new that these Spaniards had to offer. Like you said, it was a fair share of indecision.
ReplyDeleteThe definition of ambivalence is very revealing about the way Inga Clendinnen will speak about the Maya and Spaniards in the Yucatan during the period of 1517 to 1570. As you stated in your post, the uncertainties were faced on both sides of the encounter and had a lot of impact in the different ways that the two cultures interacted and communicated. Both cultures had their own strategies and personal agendas that further shaped their interactions with one another. The Mayas would, at times, attack the Spaniards and other times would have peaceful dialogues. (page 10-11) This greatly speaks on the author's choice to mark the conquest as an ambivalent one. The author's claim of the ambivalent conquest is a reasonable idea about the nature of these events, as these cultures had never encountered each other. This would have been a period of uncertainty, as the Mayas and Spaniards would have been trying to get acclimated with one another.
ReplyDelete