Response to Malintzin's Choice

In the effort of full disclosure, I initially struggled to motivate myself to read Malintzin’s Choices.  While the Spanish Conquest of Mexico is a fascinating topic, it is not one in which I have a serious interest.  I thought that it would be easier to think critically about the writing style and the arguments posed by the author when I have an interest in the topic.  However, I was pleasantly surprised when in the introduction, Townsend warned those studying the histories of indigenous peoples that, “[o]perating with hindsight, we may want to explore issues that no literate person at that time ever thought would matter, or that they may even wanted to hide, and about which we therefore have little or no written evidence” (p. 5).  For me, this statement hit the nail on the head and not just in the studies of non-literate peoples, but also of those that left written accounts.  In my opinion, many historians tend to do the very thing that Townsend warned against, to look at people and events of the past through the lens of a modern perspective.  Moreover, this problem tends to span the wide range of varying ideologies and I am no exception.  So, for Townsend to say that was indeed refreshing, but did she follow through?

In comparison to Prescott and Cronon, I would say that for most part she did a good job of trying to not fall into the trap of writing with a modern perspective.  However, one has to be careful here.  While Prescott wrote of Cortes with an air of hero worship that was common in histories written in the 19^th Century and his use of primary sources favored a Spanish perspective of the Conquest, he like us today was a product of his time.  In fact when looking at Prescott’s work from a modern 21^st Century perspective, one tends to look at Montezuma as the victimized hero and Cortes as the aggressor.  The modern observer could state that it is unlikely that Prescott intended that viewpoint to prevail when he wrote his book.  But do we really know what his intent was when he wrote the History of the Conquest of Mexico.  In the case of Prescott, it appears that he did indeed follow the 19^th Century historian’s perspective.

In my opinion, Cronon’s work was too wrapped in the modern perspective.  Once again, one has to look deeper into the author’s intent.  It appears that Cronon’s intent was to relate how human interaction with the land impacted the natural habitat.  He also intended to show that while both the Indians and colonists negatively impacted the land in which they lived, their methods of land use differed so radically that irrevocable changes to the land occurred.  Since his concern was the changes in the land, hence the title, his perspective may have been modern, but less impactful on the history of the people involved.

It appears that, on the other hand, Townsend intended to write about Malintzin’s life from the perspective of an Indian slave girl who rose to prominence from circumstances.  Indeed her knowledge of the Nahuatl language may have helped her to view Malintzin from a more holistic perspective, one that was not available to Prescott.  While Townsend did on occasion speculate about events, she mostly held true in her descriptions of Malintzin and others.  Moreover, when she would speculate there would always be a caveat that this occurrence would be unlikely because of certain reasons or circumstances, but she did not outright state that the event did not happen as described or that the players did not think in that way.  For me, it is refreshing to read a history that is at least honest about the infusion of modern perspective and the dangers that presents to the reality of the people that actually lived in that time.