Week Two

After reading the introduction to Cortes' letter you have to wonder what parts are true in his description of the land and it's riches. There are a few things we talked about in class that point to several fictitious statements made by Cortes. For example, when he speaks of "all kinds of herds being found there both grazing and for use of beasts of burden". We know for a fact from lecture today that the region the Aztecs lived in could not sustain work/farm animals nor did they have the resources needed or enough of the resources needed to raise/keep livestock. Spain and what is now present day Mexico are also in different regions so when Cortes says that the land and animals are similar to what they have in Spain, that is not a true statement. I find it interesting that at the beginning of the letter, Cortes gives a glowing review of the country but as soon as he begins to talk about the natives, he does so in a condescending/disgusted tone. He elaborates and most likely exaggerates on their "un-civilized" ways in order to convince others of the need for colonization. He speaks of the great numbers of people sacrificed, probably without understanding that they are prisoners of war, but it seems like he exaggerates on numbers and methods of sacrifice. He feels that the natives would be willing to give up their "heathen" ways if they were brought to God through religion. This is also amusing to me after learning today in class that the Aztec people had a very developed society/culture, even more so than Spain. Basically, like other periods of colonialism, the Cortes did not take time to get all the information but just assumed that the Aztecs would be better off following his way of life.
In the two poems, you can feel the helplessness of the people as their land, way of life, and parts of their culture are taken from them. "Nothing but grief and suffering where once we saw beauty and valor". I'm sure that the land was still the same but it was no longer theirs, so to speak, so they probably did not see it in a positive light after it was taken from them. It probably reminded them of bondage and slavery instead of freedom. They also feel that this situation they are in now is a punishment from their God for misdeeds that they had done/committed. I'm not sure what the significance of the niece is in the second poem so if someone understood it please let me know. I thought that the first poem gives a good visual representation of what the situation was like for the natives as they were colonized. It speaks of water and food tasting bitter and of darkness. These two descriptions helped me to better understand how the people where feeling.
The pictures help to support what we talked about in class about a well developed society. They show different plants and animals, labeled, which shows some sort of education in the society. Also, the pictures depict a working class and an upper class proving an established hierarchy.
I did not really understand much of the "Captives and Cousins". The only thing I really got from the excerpt was that the men treat the women more like possessions compared to individuals. I feel like their trading of the women and children shows the power the men have in the community. I am definantly looking forward to the class discussion to hear others thoughts on this.

Week One

I can see how the video on orientalism relates to our world today and especially to younger generations. In school when I was younger and growing up I was constantly exposed to the generic picture of the "Arab" and assumed that that was their culture and what they looked like. As a child, I did not realize that people from different cultures from all over the world dress and participate in modern culture/activities like "Americans" do. Not only have Middle-Eastern people been portrayed in a certain way, but at one point, and still some today, African Americans and people of Asian decent were portrayed a certain way as well. I think that it is very important for younger generations to be exposed to a more realistic portrayal of the world and its numerous cultures.
I thought that the poster was very, not interesting really but that's the only word I can think of at the moment. The fact that it implies that it is the duty of the "white man" to teach others about the value of cleanliness is just ridiculous. I also found it offensive that you read through this whole advertisement and at the very end it says that in civilized cultures it makes a good toilet soap which basically says that "non-whites" are equal to a dirty toilet.
The section in "The Discourse on Colonialism" that talks about Nazism caused me to think about other situations in history that can also be considered a form of Nazism. We can't forgive Hitler for what he did but we tend to overlook our offences against humanity. The sentence that says "at the end is Hitler" is true. If injustices against other cultures are allowed to continue, we will do what Hitler did too the Jewish race. The description of how the Europeans viewed themselves in relation to other "non-white" reminds me of the requirements for a dog show (being an animal science major I tend to use animal analogies for a lot of things.) In a dog show, only purebred dogs are allowed to compete because they are considered the best of the best. Dogs that are considered "mutts" are not allowed to enter in the show. There are also certain features of the purebreds that must meet certain criteria in the pattern or color of their coat. In reality, the "mutts" tend to live a longer, healthier life because they have the best qualities of several breeds. Same with cattle. Purebreds do have certain qualities that are good but two breeds can be crossed to enhance the qualities (*I am not trying to use the term crossbred as an offensive term but only trying to point out that pure is not always better). I also found the part where it discusses that other nations serve as an outlet for anger and violence of Europeans that would not be allowed in civilized society as ridiculous as the writer does. I completely agree with the writer when he says that it seems as though the colonized nations want to move forward and the colonizers want to move back.
The poem seems satirical to me. I can agree with what the poem says about the people who colonize other nations; the fact that they take advantage of what the native people have. Also, that they colonizers think that they are bettering the natives when really they are destroying their natural way of life. I do find this poem unjustified in a way, not because I disagree with it, but because this poem was written after Europe brought alot of their "undesirables" to America. So, although I do not agree with hindering someones culture or way of living, I think it is ironic that these "Americans" are quite possibly decedents from the so called "scum" of Europe.