Clandestine, Angina, “Fierce and Unnatural Cruelty’: Cortes and the Conquest of Mexico”, representations, No 33, 1991, up. 65-100. Windcheater, Keith, selections from “Omnipotence of signs: Semiotics and the conquest of America”, from, the Killing of History: how literary critics and social theorists are murdering our past, Macaulay, Padding, 1994. up. 39-44, 51-59, 65-70. Critique: Keith Windshields and Angina Clandestine wrote articles illustrating their points of view about why and how the Spanish managed such a successful conquest of Authentication.
Windcheater analyses the ideas presented by Outdoor and Clandestine. Windcheater finds that Outdoor is making an insincere attempt to take the moral high ground by defending the dead natives from 500 years ago. Clandestine makes a balanced argument from both the Aztec and Spanish empires perspectives given the limited sources available. Both Tendon and Clandestine, agree upon several factors which contributed to the fall of Authentication. The technology gap between the Spanish and Aztec Empires provided a large advantage for the Spaniards when fighting.
Compiling on this Cortez was able to implement a warfare strategy to suit his advanced weaponry. Both writers also agree that there was a cultural background to fighting within the Aztec empire however; both believe this influenced the final outcome differently. Clandestine suggested that as the fighting went on, the Aztec warriors adapted to the style of fighting used by the Spanish, a change from their warrior culture. This is because they began to dodge and take cover from enemy fire.
Windcheater believes however, that the technology gap, political relations and epidemics throughout the region are Just as important in explaining the success of the Spanish conquest against the Aztec empire. Both readings recognize a cultural difference which contributes to the success of the Spaniards. Toned suggests that the Spanish empire is a massacre society, hence morally inferior to the Aztec empire which is a sacrifice society. This classification of societies suggests that society’s kill people but Outdoor then attempts to Justify massacre to be morally inferior to sacrifice, however the credibility of this is limited.
As Windcheater suggests Outdoor does this to make a political stance in defense of native State’s who were invaded by the Spanish conquistadors. Clandestine counters this idea of classified societies by suggesting they each kill because of their cultural beliefs. Aztec empires have committed massacres whilst the Spanish empire has made sacrifices, throughout history. It must be recognized that there is not one right perspective of what happened and why it happened, instead using the sources still available historians an relay what they believe to be their truth of what happened.
Keith Windcheater and Angina Clandestine provide sources relevant for forming a version of the truth. Some writers and historians provide better sources for their articles which can be taken as a more reliable and credible summation of the truth of what happened in history. In the context of Windshields and Cleanliness’s articles, Cleanliness’s gives a more balanced illustration of both perspectives of the Conquest, and recognizes the limitations involved with her primary sources.
As the native people of Authentication, and very basic language, it’s easier tort intimation trot Spanish sources to be gathered and understood. Hence it makes it difficult for historians to understand how the Aztec empire was thinking during the invasion of the Spaniards. However, I do believe that Windcheater intended to not only provide an account of why and how the city of Authentication was defeated by the Spanish conquest, but also highlight that not every historian provides a valid point of view.
Winchester engages the reader by basically suggesting; ‘how can someone from a European modern society attempt to defend Aztec natives’ position in this war without sufficient primary sources to form a logical argument? Windshield’s article presents two arguments, and recognizes that not, technology, political situations, military strategy or culture were why the Aztec empire was destroyed but rather a combination of all of these factors were contributing to the success of the Spanish conquest lead by Cortes.