In his chapters regarding the European Encounters with the New World, Anthony Pagden distinguishes two waves of early European travelers: discoverers and migrants. Each described the New World in different ways and each made distinct claims to an authentic account.
It is highly ironic that the first wave of discovery is epitomized by Christopher Columbus who stubbornly insisted that “what he had discovered was not a new world, but a new route to the old familiar world of Asia,” (Pagden 22). Thus, when describing the things of America, he made sure not to fall back on medieval mythology but rather depicted them in a manner that was exceedingly scientific. Furthermore, he did his best to show that the Indians, despite their nudity and unorthodox sexual practices, were fundamentally similar to European Christians. Pagden provides us with a second-hand account of Columbus that shows us his admiration for the natives’ corporal self-denial and their acute knowledge of the value of gold (Pagden 17-8). If heathens could be so careful in the practice of virtue, how much more, Columbus argued, must Christians persevere in their quest for holiness? In attaching the practices of America and Europe, Columbus made it clear that there was something strikingly similar (commensurable) between the two places and that, despite the Indians’ ignorance and paganism, the Christian could grow in wisdom from his time in America.
Following the initial period of discovery came the great migration of Europeans to the New World. Many of the most prominent writers of that generation were the missionaries and religious who endeavored to evangelize the native populations. His extended time in a new context made him realize the incommensurability of America and his homeland. This, in turn, could either lead to disgust and contempt (as was the case with Huguenot Jean de Léry) or empathy (Las Casas). Las Casas, in particular, presents us with a case of conversion, from which he draws much of his authority as a writer. He may have once found it natural, like most Europeans, to persecute the Indians but following his Pauline moment discovered that they, too, were humans worthy of respect and fair treatment. Las Casas desires his reader to imitate his own transformative experience. He draws not only from his own eyewitness account, but the authority of the “I” which, according to Pagden, gives his account not merely directness but also transparency (Pagden 78). Ultimately, whether or not Europeans identified with the natives was crucial to the American experience. For a brief moment in history there was the possibility of either demonstrating their own society’s universality or its failings. Unfortunately, it is the latter point that is largely chronicled by history.
I think Pagden argues that even when Europeans did identify with the natives, they fundamentally misunderstood native culture. Take Columbus' acknowledgement of native gold-panning rituals. He took their fasting and abstention from sex as a rudimentary type of purification in line with Catholic thought. But trying to understand native practices through the lens of Christianity only led to further misunderstandings (as when he insists that his men go to Mass before searching for gold). In some cases, the observer who does not identify with the natives (like Lery who believed they were all damned anyway) could offer the most objective descriptions of the world they encountered.
ReplyDeleteIf all settlers, both discoverers and migrants, treated natives as Las Casas did (or somewhat in that vein), how would the settlement of the Americas carry out? I think it undoubtedly would have been a less messy affair, but would there be any drawbacks that weren't present in the actual course of action?
ReplyDeleteI think Pagden points out another interesting point that Las Casa's in his aims to constantly portray the similarities of the Natives to Europeans in order to humanize them, maybe really never saw the uniqueness of the culture at all. Though Las Casas' aims were different than Columbus ultimately they both failed to acknowledge the aspects of native culture as something that might not be translatable to their cultures.
ReplyDelete~Mackenzie
While I think Pagden's description of Columbus' encounter with the natives did involve comparing this foreign culture's ability to practice virtue with his own men's, I think he also made the point that the very practical goal of obtaining gold was also important. Pagden described at length the almost divine associations of gold for Columbus, and I think that his interpretations of the native's actions may have been different without seeing the natives obtain gold and without the aim of obtaining gold for himself.
ReplyDeleteI doubt that Columbus was 'exceedingly scientific,' but you do touch upon an interesting aspect of European accounts of the New World - authenticity and authority based on either objectivity (Columbus) or subjectivity (Oviedo, Las Casas).
ReplyDeleteHi Amir, I enjoyed your response, particularly your final point, which is not one I expect everyone would agree with (that the encounter marked a moment of possibility in which Europeans could either demonstrate their society's universality or its failings and the latter won out). I think it may be true that history could have told a different story, highlighting the positives of European society had the Europeans acted differently. This seems to go back to Pagden's discussion of commensurability. It seems like the idea that aspects of European society (and I expect, native societies too) could have demonstrated their universality implies that the societies are at least partly commensurable. That seems right to me.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your notion that Columbus tried to portray the Indians as having connections or similarities with European Christians. However, it is important to note that in trying to categorically construct similarities, this may have had the unintended consequence of changing the nature of the observed foreign practice into something “unintelligible to the original actors”. So by trying to reconcile these foreign practices into a framework understandable by the Europeans, explorers may have unknowingly imparted their own biases and perspectives on the native practices changing the very nature of the observed practice in the first place. Furthermore, as indicated in the text, sometimes, explorers also wrongly assimilated various cultures into one larger set of practices in attempts to create patterns.
ReplyDelete