Of Great Conquests and Gay Coquettes

“In every age its (liberty's) progress has been beset by its natural enemies, by ignorance and superstition, by lust of conquest and by love of ease, by the strong man's craving for power, and the poor man's craving for food” - John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton (English Historian, 1834-1902)

 In regards to this quote, we have already talked about ignorance and superstition (Mather and the Salem witch trials). This week, we are going to talk about lust, conquest, love, power, and craving.  First is Diaz's narrative entitled The True History of the Conquest of New Spain.

Just a warning. This post is going to be ripe with movie clips, songs, and what not. So...either enjoy or excuse it haha. 

 

“The gold of Cortés/ the jewels of Pizarro/ will seem like mere trinkets/ by this time tomorrow/ The gold we find here/ will dwarf them by far/ oh, with all ya got in ya, boys/ Dig up Virginia, boys”

Speaking of the gold of Cortes haha. First is Diaz's narrative entitled The True History of the Conquest of New Spain. Diaz’s narrative is about the conquest of Montezuma’s city and treasures told from the Spanish perspective. Like Ratcliffe from Pocahontas, Cortes is greedy for every conquest he can make, particularly if there is gold involved; and like Cortes, his men are just as greedy for the treasure.

The first was a disk in the shape of the sun, as big as a cartwheel and made of very fine gold. It was a marvelous thing engraved with many sorts of figures and, as those who afterward weighed it reported, was worth more than ten thousand pesos. There was another larger disk of brightly shining silver in the shape of the moon, with other figures on it, and this was worth a great deal for it was very heavy. Quintalbor also brought back the helmet full of small grains of hold, just as they come from the mines and worth three thousand pesos…proved to us that there were good mines in the country…next came twenty golden ducks… (Diaz 44)

Diaz does not describe these gifts to show his gratitude, his describing of them shows his greed and lust for gold and power. Like Suzanne said in class, Spain wants to fuck America and all Diaz is doing is shouting “What a nice piece of ass!” from the rooftops in all of his descriptions. I say all descriptions because in all save one, he is simply describing either the treasure or the richness of the city. The only time he does describe a native and when the native is captured. Like the treasure he has become, Diaz describes Guatemoc simply because he was conquered. Not only does he describe him in detail just like the other treasures, he goes as far as to give him rather feminine descriptors; an example of patriarchy, Spanish dehumanizing greed, and the Spaniards lust for conquest over America’s “nice ass.” Theirs is a never ending quest for domination. They want to be gods.

Tulio and Miguel in The Road to El Dorado both are extremely delighted about being thought of as gods by the golden city of El Dorado. Literally. Golden. Their greed for wealth, pleasure, and ease of living overcomes them and so they milk it for all El Dorado's worth. Which is a lot. However, they are vastly different from Cortes and his men for Tulio and Miguel do not desire to conquer the city, they are simply having fun with their ruse.

The extreme greed, show of masculinity, and conquest shown by the real Spaniards in Diaz's narrative is horrifying and still goes on today. When will it ever be enough? Does it even have a limit? Why do we consider this strength? The birth of America was bloody. It was a big “Fuck you. We’re taking over your land and there is nothing you savages can do about it” to the Native Americans. Why can we not see people different than us as equals? Not as savages? I bet you there are still people out there who view the people like those of the rain-forests as savages. What about the Muslims? Just because of terrorism, we now have dehumanized Muslims to the point where people are nervous if they see a man in a turban on their flight. Because, of course,"They're savages, savages/ barely even human...They're not like you and me/ which means they must be evil."

 

Now, as I wrote in my notes (literally), STOP! It’s book talk time! Duh nuhnuhnuh…~!

The Coquette hmm…what words do I have for this book? Everyone is probably going to talk about Eliza, the protagonist, but I’d much rather talk about Boyer and Sanford, the men who finish off our love triangle.

In class we came up with this diagram

Boyer                      Sanford

steady                     unsteady

tame                         animal/wild

convention              sees Eliza clearly

indifference              passion

reason                     

good judgment

minister                    soldier

I took liberties and added that last comparison simply for this video clip (you can stop at 1:34):

“The law is reason free from passion,” (Aristotle)

Yes. I just went there. I used a Legally Blonde reference. But so what? This is immediately what I thought of when we were talking about Sanford’s profession due to its connection to him. I find it quite amusing to see that Sanford is a passionate soldier who carries out the law and Boyer is a reasonable minister. Here me out. I have a point. If we examine them in relation to Aristotle’s quote, it brings out very interesting thoughts. Soldiers are generally supposed to be (according to stereotype) steady, indifferent, hard, and dry. No passion for they must close off their emotions to kill. Yet Sanford is a soldier when he is passionate, wild, and a libertine. If Major Sanford has the complete opposite demeanor than the one prescribed to him by his profession, what made him choose it? Is it also part of his façade as a respectable gentleman? Now on the other hand, we have Boyer who is a minister that lacks the passion usually associated with his profession. We often see and hear of minsters preaching the gospels throwing their hands into the air, shouting “HALLELUJAH,” getting red in the face etc. Yet Boyer is indifferent and tame. Why is Boyer a minister if he lacks a passionate nature? I’m not saying all ministers are passionate, I’m simply adhering to the stereotype that they are at least passionate in their sermons.

These contradicting professions bring depth to the characters and illustrate that they are not completely what we see on paper. I will use Sanford as a thorough example. Through letters we are given a picture of Sanford as a libertine who is a scoundrel in regards to relationships with females, particularly Eliza. However, this is just one facet of his personality. He is not a static character which we especially see in the end of the novel. “To her I lay not the principal blame, as in like cases, I do to the sex in general. My finesse was too well planned for detection, and my snares too deeply laid for any one to escape who had the least warmth in her constitution, or affection in her heart,” (Foster 158). He really laments his treatment of Eliza and is horrified at his uncouth behavior.

At any rate, tis the end of my rambles for this blog post.

Auf wiedersehen!

For Aphrodite was her name and love her dangerous game

Why does desire seem monstrous?

Are we powerless to our desires?

Who is writing your identity?

           All of these questions were posed in our class sessions this past week. Most of them, posed without answer. Which in turn poses another question, are these questions truly answerable or are they completely nonsensical? Well, I believe that they can be answered, albeit the answers will vary from person to person.

            For Hester’s fellow townspeople, desire does seem absolutely monstrous. Extramarital desire, that is. As Puritans, they weren’t “sexual prudes.” In fact, “marital sex was such an inalienable right that a bridegroom’s impotence was viable grounds for annulment” (Hambleton 19). Despite this acceptance of sex in marriage, Puritans were not extremely accepting of those who engaged in extramarital sex whether it was rape or not, especially if a child was conceived by the union. The men hardly were going to step forward if their admission to this “sin” “was an admission of guilt” (Hambleton 20). “One-third of women prosecuted for fornication…were unable to secure a marriage with their sexual partner before their children were born” (20). However, men were not punished nearly as severely as “mothers of bastard children” (19). We see this in Hawthorne’s Scarlet Letter. Hester (a married woman and mother to an illegitimate child named Pearl) was imprisoned before being forced to don the scarlet letter of A for adulterer on her bosom for the rest of her life. She was subjected to holding her child on the pillory in front of the entire town for three hours. And she endured all of this without admitting the name of the father (who so happened to be the minister). She was shunned. She was hated. She was gossiped about and her formerly good name was besmirched. But throughout all of it, she remained brave a steadfast even in moments of paralyzing fear. “…it seemed to be her first impulse to clasp the infant closely to her bosom… that she might thereby conceal a certain token… In a moment, however, wisely judging that one token of her shame would but poorly serve to hide another, she took the baby on her arm, and, with a burning blush, and yet a haughty smile, and a glance that would not be abashed, looked around at her townspeople and neighbours,” (Hawthorne 1361). She refused to be ashamed of her actions and reaped the consequences with her bravery, her dignity, and her love for her daughter holding her together.

            As Shawn observed in class, Hester looks nothing like the “typical” whore for she-

-was tall, with a figure of perfect elegance, on a large scale. She had dark and abundant hair, so glossy that it threw off the sunshine with a gleam, and a face which besides being beautiful from regularity of feature and richness of complexion, had the impressiveness belonging to a marked brow and deep black eyes. She was lady-like, too, after the manner of the feminine gentility of those days characterized by a certain state and dignity… (Hawthorne 1361).

Hawthorne himself even compares her to the Virgin. However, to the Puritans she is the “embodiment of the devil” and their mentality “we can’t see the devil but here is evidence he’s here.” This lack of appearing to be a “monster” also parallels Medea. Asma tells us of the tragedy by Euripides. “Medea is the daughter of Aeetes, king of Colchis”(Asma 19). As a princess, one would never assume or guess her to be a “monster” however, in order to aid her love Jason, she “drugs Jason’s foes…demonstrates her willingness to sink low by chopping up her brother…and dumping him overboard in piecemeal” (19). Unfortunately, this is not the extent of her behaving according to her desire. For Medea soon becomes a scorned lover when Jason proposes marriage to another. She says “a woman may be timid—in watching battles or seeing steel, but when she’s hurt in love, her marriage violated, there’s no heart more desperate for blood than hers” (Euripides). She then proceeds to murder not only his new bride, but the bride’s father, and Medea and Jason’s sons. Which is where the question of “are we powerless to our desire” comes into play. Are we truly powerless? For both Medea and Hester had to have known the act(s) they were going to commit were wrong, yet they proceeded to do them anyway. Medea even says “The evil done to me has won the day. I understand too well the dreadful act I’m going to commit, but my judgment can’t check my anger, and that incites the greatest evils human beings do,” (Euripides). Evil, Medea says, is incited by anger. Which, in turn, is incited by passion, her love for Jason. And the Chorus even goes on to say—in one of my favorite quotes—that “Love with too much passion brings with it no fine reputation, brings nothing virtuous to men. But if Aphrodite comes in smaller doses, no other god is so desirable” (Euripides). This quote connects Medea to Hester further. For it was through passion and/or love that they both lost their care for the “rules” of society and became powerless to their desires.

           This idea that Hester, an adulterous woman, is considered an embodiment of the devil and a slave to her desires really shakes me up for it hits a little too close to home. The situation is not a perfect match though. For my mom was not married when she met my father, nor was she married when she met my brother’s father. Neither did she marry them. By religion’s stand point, both my brother and I are bastards and illegitimate like Pearl is. While we may live in a different time and society than the Puritans, the world still is not kind in their views of unmarried women having children. I’ve grown up having to hide the fact that my parents were never married, and when it does come up and I reveal the truth, I can see people mentally cringe. That hurts. A lot. Almost more than it does when people react this way when I reveal that my father is black. Just like my brother’s father is. People like my mother are often called sluts, whores, and a myriad of other terms by society today. I’ve actually been called a bastard to my face before which definitely is not a warm and fuzzy thing to say to another person… But what hurts the most is seeing strong, compassionate, loving, intelligent women like my mother having their names dragged through the mud simply because they chose (or didn’t choose) to have a child out of wedlock. I’m tired of society continuing to not help these women and instead continuing to only let married couples reap the benefit of financial help. Yes, society is much more lenient and forgiving today than it was in Hester’s time; however it still hasn’t changed its views completely. Unlike Hester, their scarlet letters are invisible.

           The A that Hester bears takes on a life of its own in this way. It is a symbol of both the moment when Hester succumbed to her desires and her daughter, Pearl. How extraordinary that through the “oyster” of her “sin” and shame Pearl was born, her hope and her treasure. (badum psh) The scarlet letter is also a symbol of transgression and power, as we spoke of in class, which made me connect Hester’s A to Anne Boleyn’s B which she wore around her neck. If you don’t know, Anne Boleyn was Henry VIII’s second wife. He married her after he tore England away from Rome in order to become the Head of the Church of England so that he may divorce his first wife, Catherine of Aragon. This is because the Pope would not grant Henry the annulment he wanted despite his claims that their marriage was not valid due to her previous “consummated” marriage to his dead brother, Arthur. Anyway, time goes on and Anne gives Henry another daughter, Elizabeth, much to the king’s dismay for he wanted a son. This disappointment soon rears its ugly head and long story short…the head that rolled was Anne’s, literally, and all because she was accused of adultery and scores of other things (The adultery part is the connection to Hester for people still associate that necklace with Anne just as much as people associate scarlet As with Hester). However, unlike the A which meant adulterer and was given to Hester following her transgressions, Anne wore the B around her neck which stood for her family name of Boleyn. This B was a symbol of the power she held along with her family evidenced by "Anne’s prominent position in political and religious circles ma[king] her the target of Catholics, who resented her influence, and of certain noble families like the Seymours, who coveted her power," which connects to the A’s power (Ives 2). For the A had power not only over Hester, but the rest of the town as well. For her “sin” tantalizes” them just as much as the thought of Anne being an adulterer and supplanting Catherine “tantalized” all of Henry’s subjects.

           In LOST, the character Locke, is tantalized by the thought of going on a walkabout in Australia; however, he was not allowed to do so due to his being confined to a wheelchair. What is a walkabout you ask? Well, a walkabout is a spiritual journey to renew one’s soul. It isn’t revealed why Locke wants to go on this walkabout, but we can connect the concept of a walkabout to Rowlandson in her narrative for she undergoes a spiritual journey herself when she is captured by Indians of the Native American variety. Throughout her stay with them, she constantly clings to her faith and goes back to it for reassurance when she is unsettled by her “enemies.” You see, Rowlandson and her town regarded the Native Americans as their enemies and as such see them not as individuals, not as a peaceful people, but as monsters. This idea of dehumanization is touched upon by Asma as well when he is talking to a Vietnam soldier: “You’re trained as a soldier to see your enemy as an abstraction. You have to. The soldier’s most powerful weapon is not his weapon but his idea of the enemy.” Rowlandson’s fellow townspeople all feared even he mere thought of Indians coming into their town. Ideas and thoughts are like germs and are the most contagious things in the world. If you fear the thought of something, odds are you fear the real thing even more which gives it power (this is further explored in my first blog post). Her idea of the Native Americans as savages continues even though in some instances she is positively affected by their ideas and their practices. She continues to hold her Bible more sacred to her than anyone or anything else. However, through the period of her capture, her faith grows stronger and evolves into something greater to her. "He wounded me with one hand, so he healed me with the other," (Rowlandson 313).I’d assume a transformation of faith or self into something greater and stronger is the goal of a walkabout. So I’d still classify hers as relatively successful for she came out of her unfortunate circumstances a much stronger woman.

Anyways, time to wrap up, dear readers!

Make it work and auf wiedersehen!

Mena, Paula de Pando. "Ives, Eric 2004: The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn/Joanna Denny 2004: Anne Boleyn. A New Life of England's Tragic Queen." Atlantis (0210-6124) 29.1 (2007): 187-191. Literary Reference Center. EBSCO. Web. 13 Mar. 2011.

Favorite Quote Collage

“Love with too much passion brings with it no fine reputation, brings nothing virtuous to men. But if Aphrodite comes in smaller doses, no other god is so desirable” (Euripides, Asma 19)

"What men in all the world have shown such daring" (Diaz 46)?

"My life is not an apology, but a life" (Emerson 1163).

"To be great is to be misunderstood" (1165).

"My life should be unique; it should be an alms, a battle, a conquest, a medicine" (1163).

"I must be myself. I cannot break myself any longer for you, or you. If you can love me for what I am, we shall be the happier. If you cannot, I will still seek to deserve that you should. I must be myself. I will not hide my tastes or aversions...I do this not selfishly, but humbly and truly" (1170).

"He carries ruins to ruins" (1173).

"A character is like an acrostic or Alexandrian stanza;--read it forward, backward, or across, it still spells the same thing" (1165).

"We come to wear one cut of face and figure, and acquire by degrees the gentlest asinine expression" (1164).

"I am the mate and companion of people, all just as immortal and fathomless/ as myself;/ They do not know how immortal, but I know" (Whitman 29).

"I am the poet of the body,/ And I am the poet of the soul" (42).

"My voice goes after what my eyes cannot reach,/ With the swirl of my tongue I encompass worlds and volumes of worlds" (48).

"I lie abstracted and hear beautiful tales if things and the reasons of things,/ They are so beautiful I nudge myself to listen./ I cannot say to any person what I hear.... I cannot say it to myself..../ it is very wonderful" (133).   

"Good and Evil/ and their merits-"

"Men have argued through history/ -as well they should!...The battle between good and evil/ goes back to the start/ - Adam and Eve and the apple tore Eden apart!/ The key thing about good 'n' evil/ -Each man has to choose! -Heaven 'n' hell/ is a helluva gamble to lose" (Leslie Briscusse, "Good N' Evil)!

(This is the best one I could find on youtube. Skip to 2:19)

The above quotation is from a song called "Good N' Evil" from the musical Jekyll & Hyde. Lucy, a prostitute (or something of the like), sings this song which is her musing about the nature and relationship of good v. evil. In her song, she speaks about how we are all told to strive to be good, to embrace it, and stay away from evil; yet it is precisely evil that we all gravitate toward and "choose" over good time and time again. Yet "Can [we] stand to say [we're] evil?" As Hannibal Lector said in Silence of the Lambs which Suzanne told us in class. Truly, can we? And if we can, then what is evil?

I’m going to be a nerd and use Voldemort from Harry Potter as an example, as well as Frollo from The Hunchback of Notre Dame. These two are the most evil fictional characters that I can think of; they make me shudder down to my soul every time I see them on the screen and each encompass ideas of what I believe evil is. Voldemort is sadistic, taking pleasure from causing others pain and suffering. He flings the Cruciatus and Killing curses around like they are nothing, though they are called Unforgivables for a reason. The first causes the person whom the spell was cast upon to experience intense pain. Not pain like “Charlie bit my finger” pain, but pain like all the tortures from the Tower of London in Tudor times combined. And the Killing curse is well…self explanatory. He is like Hitler in a snake-like body…no truly. I know Hitler didn’t have magical powers or cast spells or physically hurt anyone himself…but he did want to exterminate an entire race of people in favor of one “superior” race. Much like Voldemort wants to exterminate all Muggles and Muggleborns in favor of Purebloods. He kills men and women and children alike with no remorse. And THAT is why I believe he is evil. He regrets none of his wrong-doings, he derives pleasure from them. The other quote shared with us by Suzanne “The most powerful thing the Devil could do is to convince you he does not exist,” applies to Voldemort as well (Beaudelaire). link>For Voldemort convinces the wizarding world that he has not returned from when he was “defeated” by Harry as a baby and relishes in his name being lost to the mind, becoming “You-Know-Who” instead. Why does he relish this? He relishes it because names hold tremendous power. People fear names for by using a name, one exerts power over the bearer of it. Voldemort cleverly gets people to fear using his name so he gains power over them instead of vice versa, allowing him to grow in power by doing little. He gains control over them. Mather also follows the belief that names hold power for he refuses to name evil for he fears what they would learn (19-20).

Frollo is a little different and more apropos to our studying of the Salem Witch Trials. He twists Quasimodo’s mind (I’m going to be using the Disney version) to believe he is ugly, deformed, and worthless. Even more so because of his gypsy mother because Frollo wants to get rid of the gypsies (wow, I’m seeing parallels here). He has no qualms about imprisoning them or torturing them despite his high status and being a self-proclaimed “holy man.” But then, he goes even further down into the depths of evil in my mind with what choice he gives Esmerelda. He forces her to choose between basically being raped by him (actually attempted in the book/musical) by becoming “his” or burning at the stake. That is despicable and unforgivable. No one should ever make someone choose between doing their bidding or going to their death. No one should ever warp and twist the minds of innocents into believing things which are not true. Although Tituba does not (or at least I hope she does not) intend to twist the minds of the girls in Salem, she does so and in happenstance, these girls are so affected by her tales of magic and mysticism that they begin to believe it is all real.

But then again, did they truly believe? Or were they just faking it in order to receive attention? This we discussed in class. I believe that these girls began believing Tituba’s tales, seeing shadows where there were none (just like we talked about with scary movies), and so thought they were doing the right thing by acting on these fears or acting upon their newfound knowledge. Overtime, I believe they figured out that they were just paranoid girls. However, I also believe that once they got a taste of their power, they grew to love the attention they received and thus no longer were just acting in fright. After more than one-hundred-sixty accusations, how can one NOT realize they were just reacting to scary stories? I don’t know…

But then again, did they truly believe? Or were they just faking it in order to receive attention? This we discussed in class. I believe that these girls began believing Tituba’s tales, seeing shadows where there were none (just like we talked about with scary movies), and so thought they were doing the right thing by acting on these fears or acting upon their newfound knowledge. Overtime, I believe they figured out that they were just paranoid girls. However, I also believe that once they got a taste of their power, they grew to love the attention they received and thus no longer were just acting in fright. After more than one-hundred-sixty accusations, how can one NOT realize they were just reacting to scary stories? Similarly, how did Adam not know that by accepting the apple from Eve he would Fall as well, when he was the one who God spoke to about it?

Lucy in the song first mentioned in this post talks about this original sin, which is one aspect of how Puritans view evil. They believed that witches were like the devil and would tempt others to become witches themselves. Which is probably more believable because of something Mather says “New Englanders are a People of God settled in those, which were once the Devil’s Territories” (Mather 14). They probably believed that their people were more susceptible to witchcraft due to their occupying the “Devil’s lands” which they took from him. Personally, I think it’s a bunch of hogwash and that the entirety of the Salem Witch Trials was just scary storytelling gone wrong and that the girls ultimately were responsible for the deaths of many due to their transforming their fear into a powerful ruse in order to gain more attention from the village. While it is true that they were children, they still crossed the line from “doing good” to intentionally inflicting evil upon innocent others; just as Voldemort crossed the line in true Hitler fashion from “preserving the wizarding race and purifying magic by simply encouraging pure bloods to mate with pure bloods” to killing blindly out of prejudice against anything that wasn’t pure blooded; just as Frollo crossed the line from ridding the streets of “riff raff” to wanting the extermination of an entire race (also like Voldemort). “It is wonderfully necessary, that some healing Attempts be made” the Puritans, Voldemort, and Frollo would claim (21). However, nothing excuses, condones, or justifies the killing of others no matter how “reasonable” the reasons sound. Heaven and hell is a helluva gamble to lose, afterall. Why would anyone risk paradise through heinous actions? How are they not able to see that what they are doing is wrong? I suppose no one will ever be able to understand why people choose to commit these crimes.