Different Stories Same Message

In comparing both titles, Salvador Carrasco’s The Other Conquest and Inga Clendinnen’s Ambivalent Conquests: Maya and Spaniard in Yucatan, 1517-1570, based off the title alone, I believed both authors had different arguments they wanted to portray, however after reading and viewing both sources, I believe they attempt to argue the same thing.

In Carrasco’s The Other Conquest, the title addresses two conquest taking place at the same time: while Cortés was conquering the land and people the friars were simultaneously attempting to “conquer” the Maya religiously by converting them to Christianity. In Clendinnen’s Ambivalent Conquests, the title addresses the conquest but by examining both sides of the story: the Spaniards (Part 1) and the Indians (Part 2). I do believe however one could make the argument that both titles address two separate conquests occurring at the same time. First, The Other Conquest, “Other” implies that there is another conquest. In Ambivalent Conquests, Conquest is followed by an “s” making it plural. So, I do believe one could make the argument but by the wording of each title but they do not state what the other conquest is and one could debate the meaning of ambivalent and what is meant by it, as is evident from our last week’s post.

I believe both writers attempt to convey the same argument. In scenes of the Other Conquest, we often see Topiltzin/Tomás viewing the Virgin Mary as his own Mayan Mother goddess. After viewing the face of the Virgin, he often sees flashbacks of the face of the fallen mother goddess statue. Clendinnen also demonstrates this confusion or connection of their old Mayan religion with Christianity when describing the Mayan use of the cross and crucifixion to worship the rain gods “spr[ang] from Mayan identification of the Christian cross with their own symbol for the yax-cheel-cab, the First Tree of the World” (Clendinnen 168). In both sources they exemplify that the Mayans made connections with Christianity and their own religion.

Also, in both the movie and the book, the natives do things to prevent the Spaniards from understanding them or their intentions. In the Other Conquest, Tecuichpo/Doña Isabel talks to Tomás in their native language to communicate. Upon their first meeting she is supposed to translate for Cortés but she chooses to tell Tomás to remain silent in order to protect him knowing the Spanish will not understand what she is saying. In response to her lack of words, Cortés comments on how concise their language is (Carrasco). Again she talks to him in their native tongue when she is “tutoring” him in Spanish. In reality she is using the different languages to her advantage to forge a letter to the King in Cortés’ name. This display of deception is seen in Clendinnen’s book when she discusses the Mayan’s attempt to reserve their traditions. They preformed a “festival to the gods” where they could be “reasonably confident that Spaniards would not understand them.” She continues to state “…we have strong evidence of their taste for riddling messages, and their deliberate and conscious endeavors to sustain their own accounts of things” (Clendinnen 160). Clendinnen then later describes the Mayans continued use of these festivals to the gods in secret.

In conclusion, I believe the author of both the movie and the book cover similar topics and use similar evidence to advance their arguments. In the Other Conquest, Carrasco attempts to tell the story of the religions conversion of the Mayas while in Ambivalent Conquests, Clendinnen depicts the Spanish point of view and the Indian point of view to show the Spanish attempt to convert the Mayans and the Mayans struggle to keep their heritage and traditions alive.