I shall start by reflecting on Vargas Llosa’s work “Question of Conquest”, Llosa’s reflection and analysis of Latin American Societies and the impact of Spanish Colonization during the 16th century onwards on them. My inmediate reaction to this essay was the realization that Vargas Llosa’s reflection was and still remains completely valid to Latin American countries, and also the bizarre feeling of identity and pride towards my culture. As I read the essay I came to realize and began to ask myself the same questions Vargas Llosa himself asks at the very beginning: How were the Spaniards able to conquer such a powerful, sophisticated, and organized society like the Incas? Why have the post colonial republics failed to improve the lives of their Indian citizens?.
The key to answering these questions is unfortunately what enabled the Incan empire to grow from its sacred city Cusco to a vast Empire, which in only a century was able to dominate almost three quarters of South America in a territory they denominated as ”Tahuantinsuyo”. It was the unification of their society and the Incan totalitairan structure which led the Empire to fall into pieces during the Spanish Conquest. The loss of their leadership (the capture and assassination of their Inca Atahualpa) left the Indians in confusion, indians who lacked the ability to make their own decisions, incapable of individual initiative and independence. Confusion. Desperation. Lack of authority. It was all it took the Spaniards to break down the system, to come through what we all kept thinking was a strong and unified society. Leading us to the question, to what extent is a unified society and a powerful and authoritarian regime strong enough to avoid its own destruction?
Isn’t this a similar case to that shown by Russian author Yevgeny Zamyatin in his dystopian novel “We”? Well, I think it is. The One State is the people, and the Benefactor is the Inca. Both unified, solid, ordered and powerful empires. However, one is destroyed due to this, whereas the other, although attempted to be destroyed, was able to persist.
As I read on through Vargas Llosa’s work and then move on to “Freedom and Democracy” I began to find a similar argument which I further on linked to “We”. That is the individuals powerlesness, lack of ability to question the social organism of which he is part of and the suppresion of spontaneous feelings and creativity, all ideas reflected and portrayed by Zamyatin in his novel.
Pre Hispanic cultures as the Inca, individuals could not morally question the society they lived in, and such is the case of individuals, like D-503, living in the One State. It is this feeling of having someone watching over you all the time, which does not allow individuals to have this notion of sovereignity.
One of the main ideas rescued from my reading of “Freedom and Democracy” was that listed previously; suppresion of spontaneous feelings and creativity, since it linked inmediately to my reading of “We”. “Freedom and Democracy” tries to explain modern era societies, like the American, that build powerless, isolated, anxious and insecure individuals, and the illusion of individuality.
The most important aspect to highlight discussed that guards a direct connection with “We” is the discouragement of emotions and suppresion of feelings in our society. This is done since we are little childs; our education has guided us through a path where we are taught to have feelings which are not entirely ours (lack of individuality), where creative thinking is linked to emotions and thought to be a sign of unstableness, unsoundness and unbalance, and where original thinking is discouraged. All these three ideas remain closely linked to “We”. In the One State, numbers are not “allowed” in some sort of way to possess and develop this creative thinking; if done so, they are believed to have a soul, and having a soul is to them, like having a disease. And everyone appears to be the same to te other.
This is driving me to another question: is the ability to develop creative and original thinking, freedom? Does our society allow us to be free? Or are we constantly driven by rules and limitations? I shall leave you with that thought too.
“Questions of Conquest” further reflection –
I just thought it to be interesting to make a further approach or simply to leave this reflection with a question mark to Mario Vargas Llosa’s work in the following aspect: “westernized Latin Americans, have preserved in the worst habits of our forebears, behaving towards the Indians during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries as the Spaniards behaved towards the Aztecs and Incas, and sometimes worse”.
I just consider that it does apply to Upper Classes in all latin American Societies, conclusion which I have reached after my experience living in Peru for the past years. We have this mentality of “conquistadores”, and feel superior (as Spaniards) than the native population in our country. As Vargas Llosa outlines, it s mostly due to the huge economic gap existing between both communities, and while Indian peasants try to integrate in this modern and capitalist world, the loss of their culture, language, beliefs, traditions and customs are at risk, while they begin to adapt the customs of their ancient masters and “conquistadores”.
No comments:
Post a Comment