According to Todorov, one decisive factor in the conquest was the fact that Montezuma offered no resistance to Cortes. From a tactical standpoint, Montezuma's lack of resistance is illogical, yet there is no evidence to his true intentions. Various documents depict Montezuma in a contrasting manner. For example, Gomara wrote: "Montezuma must have been a weak man of little courage, to let himself be seized and then, while a prisoner, never attempt to flight, even when Cortes offered him his freedom, and his own men begged him to take it" (57). Matyr, however, describes him in a more heroic fashion, sacrificing his own humility in order to avoid bloodshed of his people (56). Perhaps Montezuma did not resist his captors due to a guilty conscience, nursing the idea that the Spaniards were the rightful heirs to the Toltec empire. This guilt may have laid in the fact that the Aztecs were usurpers themselves, having stolen the lands from the natives before them. Perhaps the events described by Cortes and his companions are entirely fictitious, simply a grandiose myth used to glorify the "superiority" of the Spanish. The documents we have now, however, allow us to adopt many sorts of ideas as to what might have happened as long as we see them merely as historical narratives, not as fact. Todorov explains, " unfortunately we lack the documents that might have permitted us to penetrate the mental world of this strange emperor" (56).
In addition to the ambiguity of Montezuma, the internal differences between the Mexican population could have also contributed to the Spanish victory. The Indian population was not a homogenous one and Cortes used this to his advantage. Todorov uses parallels between the Aztecs brutality towards the Tlaxcaltecs and the Spaniards brutality towards the Aztecs to show history's theory of continuity. The Aztecs, themselves, were historically perceived as usurpers and conquerors by neighboring tribes. Todorov states that "Cortes often appears to them [neighboring tribes] as a lesser evil, as a liberator, so to speak, who permits them to throw off the yoke of a tyranny especially detestable because so close at hand" (58). Many of the inhabitants felt hostility towards the Aztecs and allied with Cortes. This may have been the turning point of the battle in that Cortes, with only a handful of men, would most likely have lost without the aid of the other indigenous population.
Finally, one of the deciding factors in the battle between Cortes' company and the Aztecs may have been the technological gap between them. For example, with their introduction of the horse, the Spanish enjoyed greater mobility and speed over their adversaries. Furthermore, the Spanish were able to utilize the local waterways for their own supply lines and troop transport with their brigantines, an improved version of the Indian canoe. Not only did the Spaniards increased technology bring with them advanced weaponry and tactics, the Spanish also found aid from an old enemy of their own; smallpox. With their advanced weaponry and their unintentional use of biological warfare, the Spanish managed to subdue the entire Aztec population. Yet, present day historians still cannot explain with absolute certainty the subjugation of the Mexican population. Even Todorov states that "yet these superiorities, in themselves incontestable, do not suffice to explain everything..." (61).
Overall, Todorov's essay is one of many works designed to deconstruct history and question the dominant historical paradigm. With all the facts and speculations aside, the implied message that Todorov writes is this: There is no single historical truth. We, in the present day, cannot say exactly how or why the Spanish conquered the Mexicans or much less anything else in the distant past. Historians must take notice that any information concerning the Spanish conquest is passed down from generation to generation and is subject to revision and the political whims of previous readers and storytellers. The only reliable truth that we can salvage from any historical document is that the documents themselves are not fully reliable. The most fascinating and befuddling characteristic of the conquest is its mysteriousness. Yet mysteries were meant to be solved. We may never know of the actual events which transpired between Cortes and the Aztecs. But is it more important to know what actually occurred, or to make your own observations and find for yourself your own truth? In this world there is no single truth, there is only what we believe and have faith in. Todorov may have agreed with Paul, author of thirteen books of the Bible, when Paul said, "We walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Corinthians 5:7). It is our own belief which molds the "truth".
In our early years of primary school, history was nothing but a collection of romanticized facts about Pilgrims and heroes as seen from the historians' perspectives. Now in institutions of higher learning, we learn to connote one word with history: bias. We now realize that the history we were taught was only one small part of the whole written in a way that would fit into mainstream standards or ideals of these times. Even if there are historians whose sole intentions are to interpret the "whole truth," they like Columbus were also influenced by the times they lived in. We must realize that this history was selective and biased; therefore, the number of credible historical texts is questionable. Should today's younger generation of students have to endure the same deceiving and romanticized history that we were once exposed to and forced to learn?
In "Columbus and the Indians," it is clear that Todorov is careful to distinguish himself from typical historians. Todorov presents works cited from Columbus' journal entries and other Spanish conquistadors. None of the Indians' records were accounted for since none were available. By the time the indigenous people had the knowledge to record events in Spanish, they had already been influenced by the Spanish culture. Rather than presenting the accounts as the "real truth," Todorov includes accounts of Columbus's brother, Bartolome, in addition to those of Columbus. As a French historian and critic, Todorov is able to provide a more objective view on these accounts; he offers a history that unfolds "new truths" not only those generally recorded. By digging deep into Columbus' entries, Todorov lays out several criticisms of the European explorer. Todorov reveals Columbus's inability to accept a culture with different standards than his own. For example, Columbus denies the existence of the Indians' socioeconomic structure, because he doesn't understand their practice of interchanged communal ownership of their property. Columbus was astonished to see that the Indians valued a piece of glass more than a gold piece. In an entry Columbus writes, "I have given many other things of slight value from which they took with great pleasure" (Todorov, 34). He cannot perceive that people would have different cultural values from his own, therefore the Indians socioeconomic structure is non-existent or unacceptable in his world. According to Todorov, with this event we we learn more about Columbus' than about the Indians. This is a perfect example of Columbus's narrow-mindedness in judging an unknown ethnic group by his own cultural standards. Todorov claims that Columbus's main intentions were to profit from the Indians, rather than to simply convert them to Catholicism. When Columbus came to America all he saw was what he could gain from the land; he saw precious metal, different kinds of plants and animal, but he only speaks about natives because they "constitute a part of the landscape." (Todorov 34) The first thing to grasp Columbus' eye was the Indians' absence of clothes, which led him to envision the indigenous in a state of "spiritual nudity," or in more simple terms, vulnerable uncorrupted innocence. Columbus saw this as an opportunity to exploit these uncorrupted people from their riches. The profit made by these crusades was takes as "Divine Will". Todorov describes the Spaniards as giving the Indians a religion and faith in exchange for an incessant supply of gold. Is God for sale? Converting the Indians meant in some way accepting natives as equals, but if they refused to convert they were subdued by force and this made them unequal and inferior. By gradual changes, Columbus shifted from assimilation to an ideology of enslavement, if they were not Christians the could only be slaves.
The last claim Todorov makes in the article, is how Columbus has hypocritical changes, were he shifts from admiration toward the Indians to calling them at the end "dirty dogs" just because they had revolted against them. First, Columbus sees the Indians as "gentle, fearful and very handsome people, ... the best people in the world." (Todorov, 36) Todorov makes it clear that Columbus does not really admire the peoples features because he also describes them as having "the same natures and the same customs;" in short, they all looked the same to him. How can one admire an ethnic groups' features if they all seem to look the same, and all he wanted was to change them all to fit his standards? Attitudes towards the Indians shifted quickly after the Indians killed some Spaniards left behind in the Hispaniola by Columbus. The descriptions were now "cowardly and wicked..." because they did not fight face to face with the entire Spanish Armada, instead the Indians attacked when the Spanish were separated. Analytical historical accounts are essential in order to enrich one's own critical opinion about history. It is critical that historians provide more openness towards historical events as opposed to writing history in a narrow perspective that limits the reader's perception of the whole picture. Todorov's historical analysis unlocks facts that for many years have been hidden from those that care to know more than merely trivial information. Todorov represents the new wave of historians in the 20th century, who are devoted to communicating a more accurate truth.
Return to Syllabus