What a deliciously juicy question. Why DOES Todorov dedicate The Conquest of America to "the memory of a Mayan woman devoured by dogs"? Why bother dedicating such a book to anyone?
I think, based on the attitude Todorov takes to nearly every character mention in his book, we can assume that he was a man of people and ideas more than a man of things and thoughts. The way he thoughtfully explains (while still sort of condescending towards) Columbus' obsession with nature and ignorance of human interaction clearly illuminates both his own occupation with the human element and his need to tell the story as truthfully to his characters, well, character as he can. I feel as though Todorov would think that the lesser of the two most frequent evils of historical accounts, one being inaccurate facts of people's actions and the other being inaccurate portrayal of people's character, would easily be the first.
So that he wants his readers to keep in mind the human element as they begin his readings is completely unsurprising. Reminding us that the numbers lost from the Native American population were not in fact merely numbers, but were people, individuals, men, children and obviously women, provides potency to his work that may have been lost in the sauce otherwise.
Fiona - I can definitely agree that Todorov is a lesser of two evil in regards to portraying historical events. Nevertheless, I wonder if by having a specific agenda - illustrate accounts typically neglected in history - if it would decrease his objectivity. If he is interested in maintaining the "human element" then we can agree that objectivity is not a priority. His work can be used to highlight marginalized populations as well as help develop concepts such as identity. The Mayan women is not a very common image for many, and this work gives light to a neglected aspect of history. I was satisfied to find a work that could provide these elements yet not focus on developing pathos, but intellectual thought.
ReplyDeleteWhile I can see your points about his possible lack of objectivity, I also think he quickly establishes and unquestionable ethos with his vast historical knowledge. Between his knowledge of the events and his intense citing, I have very few worries about ol' Tody knowing his stuff. I will agree also that his issue was not purely pathos, but definitely had interest in the pathos involved. I think he recognized that his work would cover an emotionally charged topic, squeezed most of the purely emotional goop out, and studied the human element as an anthropologist or social scientist might. The dedication, I believe, was put in this same tone- he states the woman's demise frankly, he isn't asking you to pity her- but simultaneously brings humanity and a conscience to the reader.
ReplyDelete