Week 12 Prompt

I certainly believe that both the director of the movie and the author the book were aiming for the same thing. "The Other Conquest" was portraying the conquest of friar's and their main focus on converting the natives. In Clendinnen's book, she focuses on many different 'smaller' events that occur during the 'bigger' conquest (that of Hernan Cortes). For example, in the book, one entire chapter is dedicated to Landa and his persistence in the Hernandez case. Even spilling over into more chapters, it was obvious that Landa had a certain vendetta against Hernandez for some reason and was not going to rest until he lost all he had gained as one of the original conquistadores. To me, that would be considered a conquest in itself, inside the bigger picture of the conquest (of Mexico/Yucatan) as a whole.The word conquest really only means to conquer. Conquering could be winning a court battle (as in the case of Landa/Hernandez), or winning over the souls of the natives (or at least their word) to convert to Christianity.

Basically, what I'm really trying to say here is that both, the director and the author, were trying to put emphasis on the fact that there was more going on during this time than the popular beliefs students typically learn about. These could be people such as Hernan Cortes or Francisco Pizarro. The movie is delving into the life of Topiltzin after the arrival of Cortes, and the book is exploring numerous events within the Yucatan peninsula, not just the popular, most heard-of events.