What a neat book! Here is this famous character in world history, but she's not a great man, and she's not a concept, nor a period of time. She's a woman and a side character. She didn't leave us a diary or memoir. There wasn't much written about her. But Townsend wanted to write something about her. How does an academic write about a person if there is little data on that person?
Townsend approaches this problem, of wanting to write about someone that little is know of, by writing AROUND her. Instead of saying, "this is what Malintzin did," Townsend tells us what similarly situated women would have likely done. Perhaps it's imprecise, but it's honestly stated and based on reliable, if not always perfect, data.
According to Townsend, that is a "classic problem in works treating the past of nonliterate or disempowered peoples who did not leave a paper trail for posterity." Instead, "ethnographic evidence ... provides full details on every aspect of Malinche's context and places her actions in their proper setting, ... to see what kind of thoughts she might have entertained, [and] the extent to which her decisions mattered" (p.5). Put more simply, Townsend wrote a "book about contexts" (p. 8).
We LIKELY learn a number of important things: what would a woman in Malintzin's situation do, why would she do it, and would it matter? It's clear that Malintzin did not have an ideal life, but at important junctures she made rational decisions when the opportunities presented themselves - or when she helped to present those opportunities.
Do you think Malintzin was a victim, traitor or neither based off of both Townsend and Prescott's portrayal of her?
All of the prompt questions were interesting. On a spectrum with victim on one side and traitor on the other, I place Malintzin closer to the victim side of the spectrum. Perhaps she was a victim of many people and of society, but she carefully pushed back in ways that diminished the appearance of victimization. She made space for choices that might not have easily presented themselves. Townsend put it this way: "Malintzin came from a long line of survivors, people who wrested their lives from the land in good years and bad, and who did not show their feelings when taken prisoner in the perennial wars over resources among the indigenous states. In the most difficult circumstances Malintzin herself showed the same spirit of life over death, the same kind of pride, and she succeeded in placing her children and her children's children in stronger positions than they seemed to have been fated" (p. 212). It's useful to keep in mind that the disempowered have often helped themselves more than we have previously recognized, but it's also important to note that "victim" is not a pejorative when properly applied. With American slavery in mind, was Patsy, from 12 Years a Slave, a victim? Hell yes! Was she weaker because she couldn't create the spaces for decisions that Malintzin created? Hell no! Still, Patsy found little areas of mental escape that might have made Master Epps all the more enraged. Choice - and agency - needs opportunity, and it's great to recognize those who make the most out of meager opportunities, but sometimes people are victims to more serious degrees. Malintzin was more victim than traitor, and she's worthy of my respect.
No comments:
Post a Comment