The Aftermath of Colonization

I liked how Lovell provides an unique approach to Mayan history, because in truth, all we have learned from U.S. history is the stereotypical story of how the Spanish invaded and conquered a golden empire, rendering the Mayans as victims who survived domination. (not to mention that we have predisposed images in our heads after movies like Pocahontas and Road to El Dorado that deal with colonization) He mentions the specific consequences of the illness and disease that ravaged the Mayan colony and how this impacted their agriculture. Additionally, Lovell inserts eye witness accounts from both the Mayan and conquistador perspective, which I found to be very intriguing. History books tend to be one-sided at times, or completely neutral and not accurately representing either side. The other thing to keep in mind, that didn't initially occur to me, is that the Mayan experience varied from region to region. They were more free to live as they pleased in the north and west, as opposed to the south and east. Lovell really depicts, I think, that there is much more to the Mayan conquest than what we see at face value. By habit, we over simplify the history behind it

We gain some insight into how the Mayans resisted Spanish rule and for what specific, cultural reasons they did so: "Among all these Indians there is not one who wishes to leave behind the hut passed on to him by his father, nor to abandon a pestilential ravine or desert some inaccessible craggy rocks, for that is where the bones of his forefathers rest" (22). This really reminds me of the Hispanic emphasis on family and community, and I realize now where the roots of this philosophy may have come from. You do see similar values in American culture (these values are some what inherent to human nature I think), but not to the same extent. Here, it is common for an American-born adult to go their own way, move away from their home state and settle elsewhere.

A Beauty That Hurts also makes me reconsider my opinions about the Spanish conquistadors (and similar instances in history like the Crusades) and their Christian influence. In general I feel like they are portrayed as the bad guys and admittedly, I do still think that myself. But I kind of wonder now if we should see them as more than just villains. The impression I get from Lovell is that we should look beyond the "history of Guatemala under Spanish rule" and appreciate the history of post-colonial times (126). Yes, Spain conquered Guatemala, but so what? How did this affect the country as a whole and its individual communities? Because afterward, Guatemala survived as an independent republic, only to later be afflicted in turmoil by Liberal and Conservative sides. And even this battle produced a variety of effects, as Lovell goes into depth about specific community cases.

In the second to the last chapter, I first laughed at his Star Trek reference but then took it more seriously. I realized then that I was a victim of the classic scenario he just described on page 143. How often have I promised to send photos, make telephone calls and remember the people I meet internationally? And every time I have failed on my promises because I think to myself: "Oh, they'll never remember. It's not a big deal." But it's not true. They do remember. It may even hurt their feelings, but they don't show it if I ever run into them again. They just remind me once more to send them photos. Because of this I'm inclined to think of them as naive (as opposed to strong willed). And this naivety leads to the thought that they are easily taken advantage of, which leads me full circle back to colonization and why colonization occurs. Do we assume naivety as a trait of the people we are colonizing, or is it more than that?