Take some time this weekend to reflect on the dialectic of identity and difference as displayed in the Relacion of Cabeza de Vaca. How does a presumption of civilization or of being a Christian generate tension at the point of encounter?
To this juncture, we have a grasp on the conceptual limitations of the concept, that is, that civilization is an historical invention of recent origin that carries an implicit judgmental valence and so has been used to discriminate between peoples. This valence is also evident in the manner in which the globe has been sectioned and represented accordiing to the rules of a tendentious western-bound geography. Civilization comes with a view--"things seen are things as seen"--and so it is that the geography of first, second, and third world peoples repeats the larger conceptual dialectic of "civilized" and "primitive."
This week we have taken up two new readings: Henri Baudet's Paradise on Earth and Tzvetan Todorov's The Conquest of America. The latter work is challenging, but should seem vaguely familiar, given that it is, like the Relacion, about the encounter of Europeans with the indigenous peoples of "the new world." It will be our task to try to re-examine the conjuncture of these cultures with an eye to understanding why the encounter turned violent. We will benefit in this context from the partial quote from Clifford Geertz that I have mentioned a few times in class so far: "Foreignness begins at the skin's edge, not the water's."
A worthy question in this context of the doubt occasioned by the early encounters is: How does civilization, as a mechanism of judgment of the other, shield us from the experience of what is different? In other words, what does civilization deny the civilized who act in its name? Another is: How does the affirmation of one's identity in the sovereignty of one's name protect us from the threat of our own inner impulses of otherness?
Let these questions act as a guide for your reflections for this weekend. Happy writing!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Shannon Warchol
ReplyDeleteI believe it became clear though our class discussions of Cabeza de Vaca and even back to “Found in Translation: On the Social History of the Moral Imagination” with the story of the sacrifices in Bali that the home civilization of a person skews their perception of the other and deeply restricts how and what they report back to their people. In the story of Bali we found the author struggling between being in awe of the beautiful society surrounding him and the society of his homeland who would be reading his tale. It acts as an example of the perceived identity of a person holding back their desires of inner otherness. Again and yet again, he switched from glorifying the honors, art work, and clothing, all typical signs of a civilization, to tearing them down for the sacrifices to be committed.
Cabeza de Vaca also struggled during his time in Mesoamerica. His description in the narrative of running into his fellow Spaniards after seven years of time with the natives is moving but I only fully realized the impact of the situation after watching the film. Cabeza de Vaca and friends were so fully immersed in the native culture and had been gone for so long that the Spaniards were oblivious to the fact that these people in front of them were speaking the same language and kept riding around them with their horses probably planning to take them back to the camp as slaves.
In the same respect the natives were fully willing to force Cabeza de Vaca to be their slave when they found him, requiring him to carry their equipment from site to site. It was not until Cabeza de Vaca healed the sick that the natives had any interest in getting to know him as a person. At that point they gave him back his cross, symbolizing their acceptance that maybe some part of his culture, represented by the cross, was important and worth understanding.
All three of these situations show how civilizations train individuals to work with other civilizations only insofar as something beneficial to the original civilization will develop. Little effort is put into recognizing a greater appreciation for the traditions, values, and customs of other cultures because, especially during the colonization period, the ruling civilization wants to transform the weaker civilization thereby destroying the old community.
Unlike the author in Bali, Cabeza de Vaca overcomes the part of his identity tied up in his home culture, at least partially, and begins to accept the ideas of the natives. He practices the ritual of blowing spirits of the bodies of the sick but at the same time continues to use the sign of the cross. Part of this release of his identity may be due to his need for survival. The author in Bali was able to suppress his want to partake in the cultures traditions because he was simply a self-sustaining outsider where as Cabeza de Vaca depended on the natives to survive for such a long period of time. Perhaps the culture we most identify with, the one that defines who is classified as the ‘other’, is dictated by the community which assists us in surviving. Afgahns, Germans, Poles are all others because we do not know Arabic, German, or Polish and cannot readily survive in those countries.
Zach Stauder
ReplyDeleteAfter reading many accounts in the past weeks about people coming into contact with cultures which are radically different from their own, it seems to me that one of the greatest, if not the greatest, obstacle to accepting and trying to understand these new cultures is the fear that perhaps the strengths of these new cultures will reveal the flaws of their own. This is certainly true in the Relacion of Cabeza de Vaca, as Cabeza de Vaca and his fellow “Christians” have always believed in their ethnocentric mindset that their own culture was superior to all others.
One of the most striking moments in the movie of Cabeza de Vaca was when Cabeza de Vaca is trying to revive the seemingly dead native woman. In this scene, Cabeza de Vaca seems to be using tactics which he has obtained in part from the natives, and this whole scene seems to frustrate his fellow Spaniard who leaves in disgust. An interesting question which this scene posed to me, however, was whether the Spaniard’s apparent annoyance came more from the fact that he thought Cabeza de Vaca was wasting his time on a dead woman, or from his fear upon Cabeza de Vaca’s success that perhaps he knew much less than he had previously thought and that perhaps the natives’ culture and practices had more merit than he wanted to admit..
In researching Claude Levi-Strauss’s theory of structuralism this weekend I have also found, along with some critiques which I believed to have a lot of merit, several criticisms which reflect this tendency to define other cultures as “other” and “uncivilized” in order to protect and affirm one’s own culture. I think that many people are afraid to see the similarities between their culture and other, seemingly more primitive cultures, because they believe that affirming these similarities will reduce their own civilization to the same level as these other cultures.
In my own experiences, as well as in what I have perceived in the experiences of others, it seems that often what people are most afraid of is the unknown. I believe that it is this very fear which is at the heart of people rejecting cultures which are “other” to them and insisting instead on reaffirming their own civilization. One’s own culture is known. It is safe, it is comfortable, and while it may not be perfect, one believes that they know how to cope with the various threats and obstacles within it. A new culture, on the other hand, presents the possibility of radical life changes—changes that people are often afraid to make out of fear of losing their previous sense of security. Furthermore, they feel the need to not only reject this lifestyle for themselves, but to designate it as being overall inferior to their own culture.
(Cont...)
(Cont...)
ReplyDeleteThroughout the course of my education, I have learned on several different occasions what the characteristics are that make a society a “civilization”, with these characteristics ranging from the society having a written language to different requirements that the society have an organized structure. But recent readings have led me to question the purpose of recognizing the distinction between a “civilization” and an “uncivilized” society. It was often implied in the context of my learning these characteristics that “uncivilized” societies have were the way of old, and that today we have “civilizations”. I saw it as a linear track of the human race constantly bettering itself and becoming more efficient, more intelligent, and in a way, all around more perfect. In general, I saw the new “civilized” societies as innately superior to the “uncivilized” ones. However, I have come to see that this is not at all the case. Both types of societies have advantages. Furthermore, it is a mistake to reduce societies to simply the terms of being “civilized” or “uncivilized” as these two categories greatly neglect the complexities of the many cultures across the world.
When Cabeza de Vaca arrived in the Americas he emphasized the civilized, “Christian” nature of his own Spanish culture, assuming like many others that his own culture was superior and had more to give to the native cultures than to receive from them. This attitude was initially utilized to prevent him from having to face his own inferiorities as well as those of his own culture. However, he realized through his interaction with the natives that there was still much that he could learn and that there were great advantages to utilizing the strengths of both cultures. By overcoming his initial fear of perceived threats of being “other”, which was necessary for his survival, Cabeza de Vaca was able to realize the potential which arises when one can come to truly come to accept cultures which are different from one’s own. Once one can stop using their perceived notion of their own superior “civilization” as an excuse to remain ignorant to other societies, they can realize the potential of the benefits of incorporating other societies’ strengths into their own life.
The unknown is terrifying to mankind. Just thinking about the vastness of the universe and how little we know about it can make us feel insignificant and powerless. It is much easier to make our world small and familiar so that we can minimize the unknown in our lives. When the explorers set out to explore the world one of their most important objectives was to fight the increasing uncertainty Europeans had about their place in the world. Marco Polo gave the Western world its first look at the other and this momentary glimpse excited and terrified people. They wanted the explorers to “shrink” the world by removing the doubt that Polo had first placed in their minds. They didn’t want to try to understand the other; they wanted to eliminate the other. This was accomplished either literally or through a process of “civilizing the natives.” Civilization was used as an excuse to eliminate cultures who presented the possibility of living life differently.
ReplyDeleteWhen Columbus and Cabeza de Vaca first encountered the other their first reaction must have been shock and terror. They had lived their entire lives in the company of people whose lives did not significantly differ from their own. The other was just a legend; a myth they had read about in the writings of Marco Polo. They believed in the existence of the other but it was an entirely different experience to come face to face with it. Here there were actual human beings who had no need for central government, written language, or forced labor. To the Europeans it was shocking to find out that it was possible to live without all of those things. Rather than appreciate the new realm of possibilities that the Native Americans opened up to the West, the Europeans decided to make this new world resemble their own. They could not understand the other so the easiest way to eliminate the unknown was to force the other to become exactly like them.
The other was violently attacked because it presented a real threat to the foundations of “civilization.” Work in the civilized world is demanding, difficult, and deadly. The only reason that people in the West continue to work so hard is because they are convinced that it is the only and the best alternative. Cabeza de Vaca found out that it was entirely possible to find happiness and prosperity outside of civilization. Furthermore, Cabeza de Vaca discovered that he had an inner impulse towards “savagery.” He believed that the natives were living lives free of the unnatural corruptions of the civilized world. These ideas have the power to bring down the foundations of society. They were so universally and violently rejected because people fear change and they don’t want to face difficult problems. They would rather face the problems of the world they know than a possibly better world that they are unfamiliar with. However, the possibility of a different world still hung over their heads while the others continued to live their “savage” lives. The West would never be comfortable while this possibility still existed. Their solution was to “civilize the natives” using coercion and violence. They virtually eliminated hundreds of cultures from the Americas and our world is much poorer for it. Fear is a natural impulse when we encounter those different from us. However, unlike the Europeans of the 16th century, we must find a way to accept the other rather than lash out with hatred and violence.
ReplyDeleteWhen approaching cultures that vary from our own significantly, we are unable to fully immerse ourselves in that culture because we judge all other cultures against the civilization from which we are from. Therefore, rather than accepting aspects of cultures as their own separate entity, we use our own civilization as the measuring stick with which to evaluate all other cultures. Claude Levi-Strauss supported this idea with his belief in structural anthropology. This belief is that people tend to view the world as a series of opposites: hot/cold, light/dark, civilized/uncivilized. Whenever we approach societies that are significantly different from our own, we attach these descriptions to them that separate their culture from our own. Since all people have a tendency to be ethnocentric, anything that acts as the opposite of their own will be viewed in a negative light. When we consider ourselves as a civilized culture, anything seemingly uncivilized would have to have negative connotations attached with it. This tendency of ours extends even beyond the comparisons between civilized and uncivilized peoples. Even when comparing two different civilizations that solely differ in their political or economic structure we will view any variance from our own as a deficiency rather than a difference that suits their specific needs better.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this tendency of ours is apparent even in ways that our modern culture approaches civilization. In my world history class in high school, we simply studied how governments of the past varied with respect to our own; whether they were structured similarly or if they were as democratic. This approach made it easier to understand for students because it is easier to classify something as like or unlike your own rather than creating an entirely new description. Although it was simpler, this approach robbed us of entirely understanding these cultures because you can’t understand what a group of people is truly like only through binary opposites.
In Cabeza de Vaca’s relacion we see how he struggles with how to interact with a people who are seemingly uncivilized when he first encounters them. As a Spaniard, de Vaca identifies the Native Americans solely with the descriptions of un-civilized, un-cultured, and un-Christian. As he begins to experience life with these people and identify with them, he learns that these descriptions were inadequate and inappropriate because of the extremely poor job that they did of describing these people’s rich and unique culture. The strict division within the mind of the Spanish between their civilized utopian culture and the savage life of the native peoples is challenged when the Conquistadors encounter de Vaca when he is living with the Native Americans. De Vaca is neither savage nor civilized in their minds because he looks like a Native American, but he speaks Spanish and claims to be from Spain. They struggle to realize that these cultures aren’t exclusively separate but rather they are simply different approaches towards surviving within entirely different environments. When we are shocked to see the confusion in the faces of the conquistadors when they encounter de Vaca, we are reminded of our own misconceptions when considering all differences to be absolute between cultures.
In response to the first question, there are many different ways in which civilization shields us off from a true experience of the other. First and foremost, our definition of civilization causes us to stereotype other cultures. In an example from Baudet’s Paradise on Earth, the stereotypical Ethiopian figure of Prester John tricks the civilized world into a misrepresentation of the other. Baudlet says about Prester John, “[n]o one knew him, but his person and his realm were described in minute detail by contemporary writers” (16). These stereotypical figures are numerous, ranging from a tomahawk wielding Native American to an American-killing terrorist. A figure that represents an entire nation causes an immediate and usually incorrect judgment of the other, which is precisely the problem that we are trying to solve today.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, civilization denies the civilized the respect towards the uncivilized nations. Embedded into the minds of Westerners is the idea that our world is much better than the “uncivilized” countries. In turn, we disrespect these countries and all we see in these nations are natural resources and cheap labor. In Todorov’s Discovery of America, Columbus’ main motives behind discovering the America’s were the search of gold and the spreading of Christianity. He put it upon himself to take away the riches of the Native Americans and force them to become more like the Christians of the rest of the world. Columbus did not wish to learn the culture of the Indians; he just wanted to exploit them. This is the general view of all civilized peoples. They are misled by the mechanism of judgment in civilization and take it upon themselves to correct the uncivilized world. In this process, civilized peoples miss out on the true understanding of the other and are shielded from the rest of the world.
As for the second question, the release of one’s identity from the so-called civilization allows one to truly approach the understanding of the other. This independence of identity is seen in pretty much every instance of a struggle for survival. In our readings, Cabeza de Vaca is a prime example of this transition into a new lifestyle. In the beginning of his Relacion, Cabeza de Vaca is hostile towards the practices of the Native Americans. He ridicules the Indians in his native language of Spanish and detests the weird rituals of the Native Americans. However, when surviving the elements becomes an issue for Cabeza de Vaca, he throws his entrenched beliefs out the window. He eventually learns the language of the Native Americans and even uses their healing practices when treating illnesses. Cabeza de Vaca, although originally a Catholic Spaniard, becomes an accepted member of Indian society. Other than Cabeza de Vaca, this true understanding of the other is seen in the cases of Jane Goodall with chimpanzees and in the Kevin Costner movie, Dances with Wolves. It is not out of the ordinary that a person who gets lost on a journey eventually meets another culture and becomes a part of it. The only qualification needed is that one is desperate enough to do anything to survive. Survival is a common ground that all different societies can work towards, and living down to this level is the only way in which to experience and understand the other.
The question of “what does civilization deny to the civilized who act in its name?” was very thought provoking for me. To begin explaining this, it is necessary to see how a civilized society identifies itself and how the people in that society think they are by being civilized. Almost everyone who claims to be “civilized” says it as a superior quality. Rarely does one claim to be civilized in order to be modest or lower herself under another group. There is a strong stigma between the “civilized” and “uncivilized” world in which members of a “civilized” society presume themselves better. The problem with this is, though, a person who believes herself to be better than another that she encounters immediately then cuts herself off from learning from that other. In the “Relacion”, Cabeza de Vaca begins his encounter with the mindset of being in a civilized or superior society. With this background, before understanding any of the culture of the natives he encountered led him to believe their practices were not as good as his own culture’s. Overall, having the mindset of being from a civilized society blocks the idea that anything from a “lesser” society could ever have any value. Why would anyone who sees herself as the best learn from someone she sees has totally inferior practices? So, immediate baseless judgments often shield members of a civilized society from open-mindedly experiencing new practices and ideas.
ReplyDeleteIn almost every narrative of a social encounter, the “civilized” mindset blocks the person from seeing the possible greatness of the encountered society. Even in “Found In Translation: On the Social History of the Moral Imagination,” the author often appears intrigued and almost fascinated with the beauty of the ritual sacrifice that he witnesses, but must revert in the end to the conclusion that what he has witnessed is “uncivilized” because it is different from his conception of what is right, which is really the “civilized” mindset drilled in his head.
Along the same lines, Clifford Geertz quotation that “Foreignness begins at the skin’s edge, not the water’s,” can clearly be seen in the “Relacion.” While often taken as individual otherness, this quote is highly relatable to the difference the Christians collectively felt towards the natives they encountered. The Christians in a sense shared the same skin, that is, they were all operating under the same mindset and practices, and when they reached the new land it wasn’t the scenery that was overwhelmingly different but the culture. The medical practices of blowing out the pains and sicknesses involved no prayer, crosses or stitches that the Christians were used to. While it was inconvenient for them all to be on an uncommon “water’s edge,” the most difficult aspect of their travels was encountering a culture that they were not supreme in and really didn’t even understand. The biggest tension that arises in the narrative comes from the superiority the Christians feel is innately theirs, simply by their mindset that they are superior by civilization.
One thing that I have noticed from our dealings with various cultural encounters is that people, ‘Westerners’ especially, are very quick to label other societies as “uncivilized,” “primitive,” or any other of a number of belittling adjectives. Cabeza de Vaca and company nearly refused shelter from a group of natives because they felt that the savages couldn’t possibly want anything other than to sacrifice the white men. Pierre Clastres talks about how certain cultures are traditionally labeled as “archaic” and “without real power” because of the Eurocentric view that power must come with a “command-obedience relationship”. This natural tendency to denounce the attributes of another as simple and insignificant is the basis for the idea of “Otherness” and alterity, and it grows out of one’s own insecurities as well as pride in himself and his way of life.
ReplyDeleteOne question that popped into my mind while thinking about this was “Why do people feel such a strong need to tear down the Other and what could happen if they didn’t?(which, coincidentally, is pretty much what Dr. J is asking in this prompt.) If there was a simple answer to this, this class would probably be a lot less interesting and class discussions would consist of one or two comments. I think, much like Zack, that people naturally deride the Other because they are afraid of finding that their way of life may have not be as comparatively perfect as they think. We like to define other cultures as uncivilized because it allows us to cast them into the pool of all the “uncivilized” cultures that don’t merit much serious inspection as viable ways of life. This shields us from having to critically look at both their culture and our own, and the possibility of the unthinkable discovery that certain aspects of other cultures may be favorable to those of our own.
In Clastres’s example, Westerners throw societies that are “without power” under the category of archaic societies because their forms of power do not fit with the Western views of developed societies. A consequence of discarding these societies is that Westerners immediately lose any chance of learning anything from these other societies. They lose a chance to seriously analyze these societies as their equal and possibly find that aspects of “uncivilized” life could be applied to Western societies and make life more pleasant.
Cabeza de Vaca began his journey in the mindset of most of the West, ready to dismiss the natives as uncivilized and not worth a second look. However, the further he got into his journey, and the less certain he was that he would ever return to the West, he had to begin to accept the native way of life as a legitimate way to survive. He began to respect their traditions and, by the end, he helps them avoid the Spaniards He did not see them merely as uncivilized savages, but just as a group of people with a different type of civilization.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe most obvious effect of civilization on our judgment of the other is that we immediately recognize that the other is different from ourselves. Even if the differences are only minor, a narcissism of minor differences is at work such that we magnify minor differences and perceive them as large, important differences. For example, consider European cultures, where despite a partially shared linguistic and cultural heritage (from the Roman Empire), French and British people see themselves as drastically different from each other and regard each other with a great deal of animosity at times. From this, one might think that civilization and culture necessarily entail a certain amount of ethnocentrism and a bias towards one’s own culture and deep-rooted way of thinking. After all, it would take a monumental amount of effort to convince an Aboriginal man that he should cease walking his songline because he could make more money if he worked a steady job. To this Aboriginal (at least as I am led to believe by Bruce Chatwin), not walking the songline is akin to living as only a shell of a person. To the European trying to convince the Aboriginal of this, the Aboriginal is simply unreasonable to speak of some sort of sacred connection to every part of the land. To the Aboriginal, the European is completely out of touch. These two very different people, viewing each other through their respective culture’s lenses, find it impossible to understand each other or see how the other’s view might possibly be right.
ReplyDeleteCivilization can also lead to incredible differences in how two people from different cultures view the same interaction. For example, in the case of the women throwing themselves upon Captain Cook’s men in Hawaii, the women saw themselves as exalting the god Lono through their lovemaking. The men, having not seen women in so long, saw instead an easy source of pleasure for themselves, giving gifts because they thought the women were prostitutes. Each person’s culture in this interaction completely blocked them from seeing the other person’s point of view on the scenario. For the Americans, who likely would never be able to grasp the concept of lovemaking as something sacred, having grown up in the Protestant-founded culture of the United States and being taught from a young age that temperance and restraint were sacred. Despite trying as hard as they could to understand the culture of the natives, these explorers would never be able to completely abandon all the preconceptions of their original culture, allowing them only to approach, but never attain, a full understanding of the other culture (this is the asymptotical type of cultural understanding that we have discussed in class on more than one occasion). In essence, a civilization denies the civilized the ability to fully become a part of another culture.
In regards to the question about names, by attaching a name either to ourselves or to our culture, we associate with that name certain characteristics without our awareness of having done so. For example, when we think of any European culture we might automatically associate such ideas as “individualistic”, “democracy”, “civil rights”, “equality”, “exploitation”, “opportunistic”, or “Christian” with that culture without really pausing to think about how there may be members within that culture to which none of the aforementioned terms apply. In this way, names for cultures or groups of people become a convenient way for us to subtly homogenize diverse cultures in our minds by, for example, labeling all “French” people as being concerned with social welfare. Whether or not the subtle associations we make with names of cultures are true, they nonetheless are prevalent and hard to dismantle. By calling myself “American” I may even force myself to conform to a certain unconscious stereotype I have while amongst members of another culture. By labeling ourselves as members of a certain culture, we prevent ourselves from becoming totally engrossed and absorbed in the practices of another culture.
“Hi my name is Nevin Peeples. I am awesome because I have a super unique name that I am willing to bet no one else has ever had. I am a freshman at no college other than the University of Notre Dame studying to be an engineer, which is of course the best major. I am from the Gateway to the West, St. Louis, and currently live in Duncan Hall, the newest and coolest guy’s dorm on campus. I am a huge fan of the Cardinals and I believe them to be better than any other baseball team this season.”
ReplyDeleteThis highly arrogant quote above, although completely exaggerated, reflects the superiority complex inherit in many of us. While not everyone is a pompous jerk like the guy described above, just about everyone has some reason, supported or unsupported, to think they are better than another group of people.
Whether it is among individuals, residence halls, sports teams, universities, cities, or entire cultures, we as human beings constantly categorize and rank. And so often we place ourselves, or whatever we belong to, at the top of that ranking. Concerning civilizations, this superiority complex is called ethnocentrism. So often humans tend to think that the civilizations from which they grew up are normal, while all other civilizations are exotic and out of the ordinary. While the root of this quality is not clear, it is clear that this ethnocentrism causes civilizations to believe that their culture is uniquely important, which often leads to a superiority complex and contempt for outsiders.
While civilizations give us comfort in being surrounded by those who have similar beliefs and interests, they also cut us off from the rest of the world by instilling a contempt for outsiders that is much more detrimental to our growth as a human race than healthy and natural. If we all were to overcome our superiority complexes and stop being so judgmental, we could view everyone else in their true light, rather than in the false inferiority label that we are so inclined to place on them.
Civilization is simply another construct, by which people can isolate themselves from what is different. The problem of metageography that we have previously discussed is a symptom of this greater problem. Humanity seems to create ways so as to avoid even the possibility of empathy toward what is foreign. It draws borders and builds walls in the hopes that such constructs, both physical and metaphysical, will reinforce the concept of the other. Although the concept and classification of civilization is relatively new, the use of such constructs to separate people groups is by no means recent. It began with small nomadic clans and warring families.
ReplyDeleteBeing a part of something greater is a rather crucial need. It gives people a sense of community, of being one group or one people. It is a basic form acceptance. However, the converse is that often when including oneself in a larger body, one also begins to push away anything that is different. One example is Notre Dame Football.
Since arriving at Notre Dame, I have loved the sense of community here, and one of the times that this becomes obvious is the home football game. Thousands of fans screaming “We are ND”, provides a sense of community that I imagine is difficult to find in another circumstance. However, by defining ourselves as ND, we automatically exclude ourselves from other colleges or college fans. When Notre Dame beat Purdue, I didn’t think or care about how the Purdue fans felt. When I defined myself as a Notre Dame fan, it allowed me to ignore or avoid feeling sympathy for the Purdue fans. In other words, I didn’t have to consider the other. In the same way the concept of civilization allows those who consider themselves as civilized to define the other as uncivilized and therefore unworthy of consideration.
In the case of Cabeza De Vaca, he used religion as the mechanism for discrimination. Throughout his entire narrative Cabeza De Vaca separates himself from the natives of Mesoamerica, by referring to himself and to those whom he identified with as Christians. Although Cabeza De Vaca learns to accept the native cultures and even ingrains himself with them in some regards, he eventually goes back to his fellow Christians. In fact, he refers to the great pleasure he felt in finally escaping the dangers and hardships he had to endure. This proves that even though Cabeza De Vaca was able to look past his own preconceived notions in dealing with the natives, he never stopped considering himself as a part of the Christian world.
Cabeza De Vaca used religion, we use school pride, and others use civilization, but the end result is the same. Individuals and groups, who believe themselves to be a part of a larger community, avoid experiencing what is different. Those who act in the name of civilization and label others as uncivilized are only denying themselves the opportunity to learn and grow. Yet it is easy to get caught up in our own culture or our own way of relating to the world and forget about the other. We must learn to look past this concept so that we can gain a more complete understanding of those around us.
Calling onesself "civilized" is a judgement that creates an evaluation of worth: to be "civilized" is to be percieved as further advanced as a human, more developed in culture, intelligence, and society. What must be corrected in that assumption is that a "civilized" person is worth more in their civilization of origin, where they are beter able to survive and thrive. The risk here is that of inaccurately evaluating another, for "civilization" is a measure of adaptation to settlement, not advancement in humanity.
ReplyDeleteA mistake in interpreting this leads to the conflict and violence seen during many encounters between colonists and natives; one party's pre-existing egocentrism is bolstered by the erroneous assumption of the other party's still-lower worth as humans due to their maladjustment to the other's environs. This could easily fuel conflicts by helping each party rationalize the destruction of the other as the triumph of those who are more developed and more valuable to humankind, whereas in reality, the degree of one's "civilization" in no way determines who is more valuable in the end - for single situations, perhaps, but never absolutely, as conditions are always changing, and where one set of skills, traditions, and knowledge may be the most effective, another may prove more adept as the situation changes.
As for what civilization denies its acolytes, it is the impulse to otherness, the need to wander. This is a logical response to the increasing specialization of sedentary cultures - as each discipline becomes more complex within itself, it becomes more advantageous for wandering to be stifled, as it would divert one's intellectual resources away from their intended field. Where in an "uncivilized" society, an individual could and would be encouraged to learn the principles of many different things, and so be better to react to any situation, that versatility is reduced in the "civilized" world, with each individual focusing upon a narrow band of specialized knowledge so as to better serve the larger conglomeration of such people that forms a civilized society. Yet, stifled as the urge to be knowledgeable in all things is, there exists a recognition of its usefulness (we try to balance the initial knowledge one has of every discipline from e-consumerism to calculus), and many heroes of our society, fictional and real, display the hallmarks of a "Jack of all trades", from DaVinci and Goethe to MacGyver and Batman. And still civilization resists this, responding "master of none", as it cannot encourage the masses to attempt to repeat what a few such individuals may achieve.
Throughout Cabeza de Vaca’s Relacion, one recognizes a perpetual judgment of the other—unjustified conclusions of the other that prevent effective relations between the two groups. Cabeza de Vaca refers to the natives as “so lacking in reason and so crude in the manner of brutes,” (Cabeza de Vaca 87) and he considers them not to be “men of reason” (Cabeza de Vaca 112). However, the Spaniards are not of sole ownership of the blame. The native people expressed their judgment of supremacy in a different manner. From the outset, the natives seek to create slaves of the explorers resulting from an attitude of superiority upon seeing the Spaniards’ helplessness in an unfamiliar terrain.
ReplyDeleteI believe that these combating condemnatory dispositions are a result of civilization itself. Often times, people have conceptions of civilized and uncivilized societies. It is my contention that society in itself is civilization. How can one define civilized actions versus uncivilized actions? Any attempt at answering that question will inevitably entail an ethnocentric bias. What the West considers uncivilized will likely be viewed in a different light in other societies throughout the world. Hardly can I believe that the native peoples whom Cabeza de Vaca encountered would consider their own society to be uncivilized, as the Spaniards seemed to believe. Thus, civilization would be a subjective term left to interpretation by the individual.
This subjectivity is evident in Cabeza de Vaca’s experience. Initially, as previously mentioned, he viewed the native people as lacking in reason and crude—essentially inferior. Throughout the course of his journey, though, Cabeza de Vaca begins to assimilate himself to the culture of the natives. As this process progresses, he conquers his ethnocentric bias and becomes increasingly intrigued by and embracing of their culture. This is evident in one particular event, in which Cabeza de Vaca blends both his use of the crucifix and the native ritual of blowing on an ill person when healing. Only once he had overcome his initial judgment could Cabeza de Vaca recognize the native civilization for its true value.
Also inherent in the different manifestations of civilization is a nature of competition to prove one group’s dominance over others. As seen in Baudet’s Paradise on Earth, there is an incessant conflict between Islam and Christianity, and East and West. This conflict has also been demonstrated throughout history through struggles such as capitalism versus communism and enslavement versus abolitionism. This competitive nature entails potentially debilitating consequences.
In becoming preoccupied with striving for superiority, civilizations suppress any ability to understand the other. In The Conquest of America, Tzvetan Todorov states, “men have discovered the totality of which they are a part, whereas hitherto they formed a part without a whole” (Todorov 5). I find this assertion to be unjustified in that he never expands upon his reasoning. His reasoning appears to be that because we have discovered foreign lands, we understand the world in its entirety. In recognizing the geographical entirety of the world, I personally have come to recognize how little I truly comprehend the world as a whole. It appears to me that through these discoveries, civilizations have taken their responsibility to be one of conquest and transforming others to adopt their civilization as opposed to recognizing and embracing the differences the define us.
(Continued)
(Continued)
ReplyDeleteFinally, the individual presents itself as a microcosm of civilization as a whole. As seen in Clifford Geertz’s quote that “foreignness begins at the skin’s edge, not the water’s,” we recognize that individuals experience a similar situation within their own civilization as civilizations do within the world community. We experience those that are different from us, and rather than embracing others, we tend to experience a natural drive to show our dominance. On the whole, people desire to attain the highest status level possible. Whether it be a job promotion, becoming valedictorian, or any number of other cases, people are often preoccupied with becoming the preeminent figure, and thus lose sight of the immensely important aspect of understanding those around as and what truly defines us as individuals.
If I had to pick one major concept I’ve been exposed to in the past couple of weeks, it would definitely be the idea that civilization is not synonymous with affluence, hierarchies of order, or technological advances. Contrary to common beliefs, it does not take skyscrapers or chaotic political systems to create a civilization. The problem is today, most people in our society do not seem to grasp this concept. We judge others by the way they act and dress in comparison to our own society. Just because so called “primitive people” do not wear the same clothes, live in relative poverty, and practice an unknown religion does not mean they are inferior or need to change their culture in favor of a more advanced one.
ReplyDeleteIt was quite interesting how Cabeza De Vaca seemed to grasp this concept towards the end of his journey. When he realized what the “Christians” were doing to the natives, he convinced the natives to act like they were Christians to prevent them from getting captured. I found it ironic how different De Vaca’s Christian methods, which morphed over the multiple years he spent lost, were from the other “Christians”. He helped the Indians in any way he could even when that involved attempting to save a woman by blowing on her and talking in the natives’ language. This drastic contrast between the two Spaniards was epitomized in the movie scene where the two groups encountered each other. The viewer could clearly see how much of a “native” De Vaca had become. He overcame his original prejudices from civilization and became completely immersed in another culture. Throughout the book, De Vaca seems to have similar experiences as the author of “Found in Translation”. In both situations, the authors seem to become integrated into the society and seem to understand how it functions until they remember that they are not following the accepted beliefs and revert back to their previous ill-conceived judgments. This shows how difficult it is for people to change beliefs they have had their whole lives even if they have experienced the culture first hand.
Civilization, in the way perceived by most “Westerners”, creates problems when people are faced with new ideas about society and culture. The current connotation with the word leads to preconceived, judgmental notions about those are different from themselves. These incorrect assumptions caused numerous explorers to set out to find imaginary cities of gold and current day countries to try to impress their beliefs on other unwilling entities. While there is obviously a problem with these sorts of notions, few rarely take the time to question what has been passively taught to them for years. This leads to even more close-minded, judgmental individuals and conflict around the world. Because of these occurrences, it is now difficult to judge a new culture with an open mind and understand the facets of their beliefs. Most of characters/narrators/authors of articles and books we have studied struggle with this concept as they try to understand and function in the new environments they encounter. In almost all cases, they seem to have a limited measure of success; this seems to say something about the extreme closed-mindedness of the world we live in.
A review of Todorov's The Conquest of America and Baudet's Paradise on Earth accords a deeper inspection into the understanding of how societies function when encountering others. The idea that societies possess predisposed stereotypes about native cultures saturates the works. The authors quickly denote behavior of specific situations of European Christian encounter with natives. For Todorov, Columbus serves as the perfect European explorer to visualize this predisposition of ideas. During his journey, Columbus desired to discover gold and explore for the sake of exploring; however, Columbus also wished to convert the "backwards" natives of other countries to the salvation of Christianity. In Baudet's case, the idea of the "noble savage" surfaces strongly. For his description, Baudet describes the noble savage as a person possessing the benevolent traits of Christianity who does not live in the European style. His example points to the mythical king Prester John. What do these two disparate cases have in common? They both show the failure to learn by Europeans because of predisposed Eurocentric ideas, and upon closer inspection, this failure occurs throughout history.
ReplyDeleteColumbus began his journey with an intent to convert cultures to Christianity. He saw the natives as people of inferior culture and wanted to help them become superior. However, his ideas shielded him from the true culture of the natives. When Columbus arrived, he sought so much to conquer for Europe in religion and wealth that he almost completely ignored native culture. By shutting his mind to the native culture, he completely ignored the civilization that occurred in this new land.
Baudet's article projects the image of an egocentric Christian culture seeking to convert others. Baudet offers Prester John as example, the leader of the Ethiopians. Calling John a "noble savage" because of his Christian-like behavior, the European Christians created a mythological status of the Ethiopian empire. They viewed this leader known only by name as a man who could begin Christianity's conquering of Islam. However, when the Europeans sought John out, they found a culture completely different from their views of the "noble savage" of lore. Because they carried predispositions, they could not truly appreciate the Ethiopian culture. They could only view what their Christian perspective subjected the culture to.
The Relacion of Cabeza de Vaca offers a final illustration of this phenomenon. By simply wishing to convert the natives to Christianity, the Spaniards ignored native culture and despised it. They viewed their own culture as the superior culture, and they wished to overcome the inferior culture and thus separate themselves from the barbarity associated with it. However, Cabeza de Vaca shows how overcoming predispositions reveal cultures. After overcoming his predispositions, Cabeza de Vaca lived and perpetuated native culture. He discovered the civility it possessed. He even began to cure natives with aid of both Christian and native practices. By allowing himself to become submerged in the culture he discovered its civility. By the middle of the Relacion he even began to personify the Christians as savages for raiding native villages. By simply allowing his predispositions to disappear, Cabeza de Vaca helped to identify his culture and discover another.
ReplyDeleteThese examples all create an image of how cultural superiority can create walls that shield people from other cultures. The walls do not allow association and only force the inferior culture to become more other. Nevertheless, by forgetting predispositions, cultures can break down the walls of other to help discover self. This especially shows for Cabeza de Vaca. When marooned among the natives, he shunned and then accepted their culture. At first, he sought to separate himself from the culture's barbarity, but after living among the natives, he began to identify the characteristics within himself that appeared foreign to Spanish Christian culture. He even began to partake in ritualistic activities of healing. As Cabeza de Vaca illustrated, overcoming predispositions reveals the truth of culture and opens oneself to discovering one's true self. By forgetting about the idea of an inferior culture, one can discover the truth of the culture and eventually one's own culture.
The questions posed here brought to mind a quote from the Clastres reading, (it was something that struck me hard then, but had never found a place in my paper so I'm glad to bring it out now.) The sentence was something to the effect of, "We've got to stop thinking of history as a one- way street." In the section from which this line was taken Clastres discusses the idea of societies lining up their historical timelines with those of other communities and measuring civilization by how many of these key events it has lined up with. For instance, while the Western world has undergone drastic development in time periods like the industrial revolution, and now show the same momentum of development of technologies, many of these "archaic" cultures have yet to even discover the iPod -- how sad and unimpressive. The point is that every country and society and community and group are growing and changing in their own way, making accomplishments in different fields, and advancing in separate directions. No two histories are really "juxtaposable." ( < please forgive this made up word.)
ReplyDelete"But Caroline...isn't this completely irrelevant to the prompt?"
Glad you asked. I think it's very applicable to the idea of misreading cultural differences and rejecting an idea outside of ourselves. Civilization denies the civilized the opportunity to accept or even consider a concept deemed laggard. We all become racehorses with our blinders up and eyes on the prize, namely, the future for the main areas of Western development.
This phenomenon is the same that initially kept Cabeza de Vaca from appreciating the medicinal value of the native healing process. The natives' clothing and appearance were a far cry from modern Spanish fashion. Their primitive lifestyle more closely resembled the societies of CdV's distant ancestors than anything he was exposed to. By marking his progress against their's in a linear way, the entire interaction was doomed to failure. He quantified the difference between his value as a human being and that of a native man.
CdV's affirmation of his sovereignty came from this fact and allowed him to dismiss any chance of there being something to learn from the people he encountered. His Spaniard status was like some uncontested AP credit to skip out of a lesson in native teachings. By putting up the blinders, CdV protected his civilized self from any bizarre, foreign contaminants. He eliminated the possibility for learning.
However, as we learn, he eventually succumbs to his curiosity and finds a surprising appreciation for the culture. This is an important lesson to take from the reading, and something that one should approach all "others" with in mind.
The very concept of civilization is rooted in ethnocentric and xenophobic tendencies that humans inherently share. It must be noted that the defining of others as civilized or the lack there of is not the only means of ethnocentrism, it is but a single means of expression. For example, the natives that Cabeza de Vaca experiences view the Spanish conquers as demons that come from where the sun sets whose primary purpose is to kill. It is safe to say that is the natives were to compare cultures (although such is a superiority complex the natives ,in general, lack), they would find themselves to be more ethical and just than these murderous invaders, which in turn is the expression of their own ethnocentrism. They are able to define the Other in relationship to themselves by measures of action.
ReplyDeleteThe Europeans, on the other hand, define this division in terms of lifestyle. Instead of classifying by the motives of basic acts, such as killing, these Westerners determine the other by judging how these acts are completed. When people choose to believe that that their means are more effective, the term “civilized” enters the discussion as a label for the culture seen as superior. Nevertheless, in a process very similar to that which Pierre Clastres notes, this form of labeling leads to the “uncivilized” being viewed as not different and possibly inferior, but more importantly undeveloped. The Spaniards view the natives as uncivilized partly because they perform rituals and lack the complex agriculture of Europe. Yet as Cabeza de Vaca is thrust out of his personal sphere of “civilized” safety and into a foreign environment, it becomes evident that such a culture is not undeveloped. The ritual healing he experiences and eventually even undertakes is shown in all instances to be highly effective, and the sustenance farming techniques of the natives are what save the Spaniards from complete starvation and grant them a chance of survival. As Claude Levi-Strauss argues, no single culture can be viewed as superior to the other because each merely focus on different goals. In turn, no society can be viewed as undeveloped, which the label of “uncivilized” often implies.
Because civilization implies the extent of development of a culture, it often leads to a very single-minded approach to life for Westerners who use the term. The tribal cultures and poor nations that are classified as uncivilized are as seen as underdeveloped, as children in comparison to the modern West. In this light, Westerners have little reason to embrace these lifestyles because they are simply seen as unimproved prototypes of a distant past; their lifestyle offers no improvement in the eyes of the “civilized”. Thus, the label of civilization offers a mean of avoiding the Other as it discards it as a primal being rather than an equal-but -opposite approach to life that it is. These primal implications that go hand-in-hand with the “uncivilized” are very representative of the internal struggle of humans trying to define themselves as something more than mere animals. As humans use their knowledge and reason in an attempt to transcend their animal nature, this bestial side represents the Other that they are trying to escape. Thus, the classifying of civilization offers a broad and evident divide between the reason-oriented and developed Self, and the primal and undeveloped Other. Nevertheless, it is unfortunate that this struggle to escape the Other causes societies of different yet effective cultures to viewed as inferior to Western ones that possess many flaws of their own.
Sarah Forde
ReplyDeleteThe presumption of a civilization as being Christian often leads to unjustified and undeserved assumptions of righteousness and purity. This is not to say that all Christian missionaries are inherently corrupt, because this is absolutely false. Many, like Cabeza de Vaca, actually venture into a new land with the hopes of helping the native people by showing them Christianity and teaching them to believe in God. Though he wished to convert the natives, however, he worked their own culture in when he did things like healing the sick using the power of the Holy Spirit. By using both the Christian crucifix and chants in the language of the natives, he was able to bring together the two cultures in a way that they could more easily understand.
Some missionaries, however, such as those in Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart, exhibit less honorable intentions. For example, the missionary Mr. Brown drives the members of Okonkwo’s tribe against each other by encouraging the disruption of traditional tribal activities, and thereby provokes an all-out, cultural clash between the Christians and natives. While they had at one point been peacefully coexisting, the unmasking by a Christian of a tribal spirit, or egwugwu, during a ceremony heightened tensions and led the villagers to try to destroy the Church. This overzealousness on Mr. Brown’s part contrasts distinctly with the understanding, sympathetic, transitional approach used by Cabeza de Vaca.
Unfortunately, most Christian missionaries are put into a category with the more honorable missionaries, and then use their position to take advantage of the natives. This is made clear through the wary actions of many natives towards the Christian missionaries that arrive, but, if the situation is handled correctly, as in Cabeza de Vaca’s case, the missionary can reach the natives better by assimilating into their culture and teaching about, rather than forcing belief in, the Christian faith. This more effective method of teaching enables the natives to see the missionaries as new comrades rather than as malicious outsiders bent on converting them to an unknown faith.
On another note, the Clifford Geertz quote, “Foreignness begins at the skin’s edge, not the water’s,” accurately describes the difficulties of determining the boundaries of one’s culture. While one can be a part of a culture, there are varying degrees of participation within that culture. For example, in Joseph Conrad’s The Secret Sharer, the captain was a part of the community of the ship’s crew solely because he was the captain. Though he was technically a part of this group, he remained a liminal figure until the very end, after his “secret sharer” left and thereby allowed him to mature and take charge. This demonstrates the varying levels of involvement within a culture and how those levels can fluctuate, like the wind or the tide. Because he is on the fringe of the crew, the captain uses his “outsider’s” position to try to assess the other members’ opinions of him. By constantly worrying about these opinions, he inadvertently distances himself from the crew he is not sure he can be a part of. However, when he finally gains the confidence, after navigating the ship through a critical situation, to command his crew, he stops paying attention to the crew’s judgments (or the ones he believes exist), and actually becomes a part of the crew. This clearly demonstrates the fact that, rather than spend time worrying about what people might think of you, you should take charge and develop an image for yourself.
ReplyDeleteOverall, the readings in this class so far have taught me that the cultural definitions I once thought held true for the most part are far more complicated than they initially seem. I have realized how much I need to learn in order to gain a more accurate picture of not only other cultures and the people within them, but of myself in relation to the various circles I belong to.
What defines whether or not a person is civilized? It seems to me that the people who would think to ask that question are the ones who would qualify as “civilized.” That is, civilization is only defined by the people who meet that qualification. In this way, labeling a group of people as civilized is only another means of dividing the human race into groups. Like the more recent terms “first world”, “second world”, and “third world”, or “the West” and “the East”, the idea that all people can be broken up into two categories, “civilized” or “primitive”, is one that is inherent in the human mind. This type of judgment leads to a feeling of superiority over the other. It is not an exaggeration to say that many of the civilized people of today consider the primitive tribes of Africa or South America to be a whole different type of people, a “sub-human” race. This arrogance results from the desire to identify with “civilization”, that a life marked by better technology and more modern ideas should be considered the proper way of living for the entire human race. In fact, this arrogance can only blind us from the sheer vastness of human experience that exists in the world.
ReplyDeleteHaving a mentality that the civilized world should try to force their own way of living on the rest of the world is quite dangerous. Some societies may be more accepting than others when it comes to taking in the ideas of the civilized world, but historically, this is often not the case. During the conquest of North America, in particular, there are countless cases of rebellion and hostility. All result from “civilized” people coming in and forcing their ideas upon the native peoples, taking their land, and ultimately wanting to conquer their society. What gives someone the right to do that? And furthermore, what says that the “civilized” way of life is the correct one?
The answer to this lies in the natural human desire to preserve their identity. Foreign cultures and societies seem strange and incomprehensible, so the natural tendency is to want to force others to assimilate to your own way of living. However, people fail to recognize how much there is to learn and gain from an understanding of a culture other than their own. Refusing to stray away from our ties to
our “civilization” blinds us from the insight that comes from learning about and experiencing “primitive” cultures. Having a willingness to open up to the other and a different way of life can be very intellectually beneficial. For example, in The Songlines, Bruce Chatwin comes to Australia to learn about the Aborigines and their fascinating way of life. He is constantly learning more and more about not only the people there, but also himself and the human race as a whole.
So, by only living in the narrow aspects of our own civilization, we deny ourselves the opportunity to learn, grow, and understand ourselves better. It is only when we really open ourselves up to understanding that we can have this opportunity, and sadly, it is one that most people miss. Although the range of human society in the world is extremely vast, we must remember: we are all people, and there is much to be gained from a further understanding of that.
No matter what background an individual has, they always have some sort of bias. It is impossible for past experiences not to affect an individual’s perception both the world and the other. Coming from a “civilized” society, our generation of Americans has grown up believing in the strength of our nation and the power of the Western world. Along with this idea of power comes a view of “right” and “normal.” The fact that what is defined as “right” and “normal” varies greatly within our own country is another topic all together. By being oriented from birth to believe that our style of society, government, and religion is “civilized,” “right,” and “normal,” we often dismiss The Other as nothing more than “weird” and “wrong.” The Other can contain so much beauty, truth, and mystery that it’s a shame so few recognize it. I find it sad that members of our “civilized” society can judge another so quickly and refuse to even acknowledge their merits, especially when there is so much we could learn from them.
ReplyDeleteOne of the reasons people cling to their ideas of societal norms, is that it allows them to cling to a group identity. No one wants to be alone or The Other, so we hold on tightly to whatever unites us with our own society. Hypocritically, we don’t want to be the outsiders, so we hang on to our values in order to push others out. It’s kind of like the playground bully who belittles others to make him/herself feel better. I can’t help but notice that this strategy for self-preservation only exists within the borders of ones own society. Alone in Cambodia, an American with no experience there is automatically an outsider, no matter how hard they cling to their American social norms. Not only may those norms be considered strange, they way very well be seen as rude or inappropriate by the surrounding population.
Whether as a protective mechanism or as an excuse for ignorance, our current “civilized” society prevents individuals from experiencing The Other. It doesn’t matter if the encounter would have been good or bad, because now it simply will not occur, and that’s a terrible, terrible shame.
Michael Collins, Ryan Lynch, Caroline McIlroy, Andrew Ritter, and Shannon Warchol
ReplyDeleteThere is no specific place to post this, so I thought this might suffice. Here's what we think is the truth about Marco Polo:
Ever since the earliest of childhood days, people have heard of Marco Polo. Usually, introduction to the explorer involves an aquatic game played at parties, but what did Marco Polo really do? During his lifetime, Marco Polo is said to have traveled all over Asia and discovered the Asian culture. He then wrote of his travels to tell all of Europe, but how much of this is really true? The debate of whether Polo ever traveled to Asia still rages today. However, no matter whether or not Polo ever traveled to Asia, the major factor of his story rests in the impact of his novel.
According to the novel about his travels, Marco Polo is said to have traveled across the Middle East and into East Asia. In his novel Le Devisement du Monde , he recounts events all across the continent of Asia that indicate where his journey guided him. However, through these descriptions, doubt arises as to whether or not Polo ever reached some of the localities. First, most of the stories of the East Asian culture appear grossly exaggerated. Until Polo reaches East Asia, the stories are plausible, but upon reaching East Asia, the stories become fantastic. His description of the palaces in East Asia border mythology when he indicates that they stretch for miles and miles. Also, a lack of evidence in the records of the East Asian societies derogates the truth of Polo's travels; if he had actually served the Great Khan, the culture would have created some record of his presence, but the record of his travels simply does not exist. Finally, the fact that no two translations of the original work read the same brings doubt because the translations greaten exaggeration. There is no way to tell where Polo actually went and where he exaggerated facts to create the appearance of his actual travel due to this added exaggeration. However, the absolute truth of Polo's journeys matter not. Whether or not the novel was fabricated, the impact on Europe is the only truth considered essential when considering Polo.
(Continued)
ReplyDeleteWhen Polo wrote of his travels, the impact on Europe shook the culture at its very base. Before reading the accounts, the sedentary people of Europe never understood Asian cultures; they possessed mythological views that stretched far enough to even consider the existence of giants. When Polo's travels finally reached print, these views quickly changed. Though the truth of the stories is doubted to this day, they opened the eyes to the humanity of the Asian cultures. The East lost its barbaric image and became an assembly of exalted cultures; the Europeans changed from a state of fear over the barbarity of Asia to a state of interest in the seemingly mythological cultures. The other became more relatable than the initial views perceived. Polo's writings lifted the Asiatic cultures in the eyes of Europeans with his stories and created a sense of humanity within the cultures that decimated any views of inferiority that Europeans possessed toward Asian cultures.
Along with the great impact on the perspective of Europe, Polo also helped to inspire much of the exploration that occurred after his journey. After his novel reached Europeans, the idea of exploration in Asia amplified. The general interest in Asia encouraged people to further study its farthest reaches and its incredible diversity. Even when leaving on his journey, Columbus carried a copy of Polo's novel with him. For a book of questionable truth, Polo's narrative of his travels affected the age of exploration greatly in Europe. People sought to learn more about the continent and its new image of mythological humanity that Polo perpetuated. Polo's work inspired Europeans to seek out more knowledge of the Asian cultures and helped to spark interest in learning of other cultures.
While the truth of Polo's journeys still remains a question that nobody can answer for sure, the real impact of Polo resonates in his effect on Europe. Because of Polo, the European perspective of Asian cultures drastically changed from fear or inferiority to interest and mythology. Today, this view of Asian cultures may appear silly, but Polo largely pushed forward understanding the other. Due to him, the exploration of the other exploded and began its ascent to its current point. That's not too bad for a person who most people know only because of a pool party game.