The self-described "long-running weekly
NPR show" Latino USA recently posted a story on "La Malinche" described by the editors as
"Mexico's Eve". There is actually so much wrong with
the piece that it should be denounced for its inaccurate, misogynistic and
overtly anti-Mexican bias. The history of Malintzin is not a tale of unrequited love, indigenous slavery or even Mexican machista self-hate. Malintzin is a historical ancestor, a real person surviving utter catastrophe rarely survived and almost incomparable in the history of humanity - the spanish invasion of Anahuac and the subsequent colonization of Mexico.
The editorial written by Latino USA’s editor in
chief, Maria Hinojosa introduces Malintzin to the gentle ears of mainstream
listeners as, "Hernan Cortes’ lover" - so callously fitting the
history of the rape of indigenous women into the dominant narrative of native
women falling in unrequited love with white male domination.
People like
Malintzin were not caricatures - they were survivors.
How ought we understand the stories of
the countless women raped and killed by Cortes and his men, the native girls
molested and impregnated by spanish priests, the women left for dead with venereal
diseases, and the torturous survival of rape with a child of that rape to care
for? This is the history of women, of survivors, of heroines - and of human beings confronting the unimaginable horrors of genocide.
Is Latino USA not aware that Pocahontas was a child
not a woman when faced with John Smith? Latino USA’s portrayal of Malintzin’s state as "slavery" in
Mesoamerican culture is warped and ahistorical and becomes outright anti-Mexican
when asserting that “Aztec culture” enslaved Malintzin as if to convict an
entire People – even though Malintzin was not actually “Aztec”. However this
fits neatly into another dominant anti-Mexican narrative, the Spanish invasion
and colonization was a JUST and GODLY war against the evil and savage “Aztec Empire”.
The article also portrays Malintzin as "Cortes'
lover" as if writing the first act in a sexual romance novel - even though some sources cite Malintzin being 14 years old at the time of invasion (1519). What is the
second act?: "she contracted syphilis but used magical herbs to cure
herself"... ?
The article regurgitates post-modernist babble which
betrays the true dominant narrative: Mexicans
hate themselves, Mexican men hate Mexican women, Mexican self-hate is a
cultural trait of their breeding...the gentle racism of white liberalism
masked by the pen of a "Latin"-a.
Depicting Malintzin as “Eve” truly echoes the
voice of the oppressor no matter the ethnic identity of the bicoastal author.
The complexity of Spanish invasion and survival
by our ancestors is not the making of Octavio Paz - it is the bloody history of
a colonial chapter in our history that has not yet closed.
Had the article’s author and editor conducted
even the most basic research they would have found at least one publicly
available primary source – albeit from a corrupt Spanish soldier: the annals of
Bernal Diaz del Castillo.
"This was a lady of distinction, the daughter of a
powerful cazique and a princess who had subjects of her own, which, indeed, you
might see from her appearance. The circumstances which occasioned her being
brought into our power I will relate hereafter. The names of the other Indian
females who were baptized I cannot now bring to mind; but these were the first
who were converted to Christianity in New Spain, and were distributed among
Cortes's chief officers. Doña Marina, who was the prettiest, the most active
and lively of the number, was given to Puertocarrero, who was a stout cavalier
and cousin to the earl of Medellin. When he subsequently left for Spain, Cortes
took Marina unto himself, and had a son by her, who was named Don Martin
Cortes, and became Comptoir of Santiago." Chapter
XXXVI
Diaz del Castillo then goes on to describe, "How Doña Marina herself was a caziquess, and the
daughter of distinguished personages; also a ruler over a people and several
towns, and how she came to Tabasco," in Chapter XXXVII.
"I must relate what I know of Doña Marina. She was born
a ruler over a people and country,—for her parents had the dominion of a
township called Painala, to which several other townships were subject, lying
about twenty-four miles from the town of Guacasualco. Her father died when she
was very young, and her mother married another young cazique. By him she had a
son, of whom it appears they were both very fond, and to whom, after their
death, they designed to leave their territories. In order, however, that the
daughter of the first marriage might not stand in his way, she was conveyed
secretly during night-time to an Indian family in Xicalango, they spreading the
rumour she had died, which gained further belief from the circumstance that a
daughter of one of her female slaves happened to die at the time. The Indians
of Xicalango did not keep the young girl themselves, but gave her to the
inhabitants of Tabasco, by whom she was presented to Cortes."
Clearly, this was not a simple case of
a slave sold for chattel – or a “culture” which would sell its own daughters
into slavery.
Since the history of the invasion is mostly only officially
acknowledged through the writings of the invaders, histories of the survival of
this invasion and its subsequent state of domination kept by oral tradition are
largely discounted.
Histories that relate that Malintzin was actually a spy for
indigenous peoples, that she was actually a historical agent conscious of her
role, and that she was protected by the indigenous Mexican customs of diplomatic guarantees as an
“interpretress” are lost upon the narrative of modern popular culture about
“malinchismo”.
In fact, “malinchismo” actually has nothing to do with Malintzin
– it is the deculturalized and ahistorical version of Mexican history used as
propaganda and not much more. Paz’ version is nothing but poetry – poorly
composed at that –targeting those who would betray their own people.
Diaz
del Castillo concludes his chapter on Malintzin by emphasizing that:
"This woman was a valuable instrument to us
in the conquest of New Spain. It was, through her only, under the protection of
the Almighty, that many things[15] were
accomplished by us: without her we never should have understood the Mexican
language, and, upon the whole, have been unable to surmount many
difficulties."
By the same token, Cortes dragged
around Cuauhtemoctzin, the last sovereign Mexica huey tlatoani, in order to
invade and plunder with greater ease after 1521. No one would consider
Cuauhtemoc a traitor to his people. Yet, Huey Tlatoani Motecuzoma, his uncle, is
depicted as a coward by the dominant narrative of the invasion of Mexico.
Similarly, Malintzin’s true history is distorted through a deculturalizing and
self-shaming process mistakenly appropriated by those seeking to denigrate
Mexicans. This is not a sign of the ignorance or sexism among the citizens of Mexico City, but an example of the deeply rooted deculturalization of mainstream Mexican education.
Latino USA’s depiction of Mexicans as “illegitimate”,
although seemingly critical on the surface, actually contributes to a long
history of slander and deculturalization through mainstream media. Claiming a
“Chicana” voice will not mask weak research. In fact, Latino USA’s narrative
serves to demonstrate why the “Latin”-o identity as an ethnicity of an American
majority serves only to confuse and deculturalize the history and narrative of
the indigenous survivors of European genocide.
For additional information on the complexity and availability of original sources on the invasion of Mexico see: http://www.historians.org/teaching-and-learning/classroom-content/teaching-and-learning-in-the-digital-age/the-conquest-of-mexico/for-teachers/general-discussion-of-the-primary-sources-used-in-this-project
No comments:
Post a Comment