Small yet Strong

Before this reading, I always associated Mayans with an ancient, non-exist culture. The only thing I ever really knew (or thought I knew) about the Mayans were that they were an early American civilization that the Europeans managed to take over. However, my past history classes never put emphasis on the fact that the Mayan culture still exist. One of the aspects of this weeks reading that stood out to me was how tight-knit the Mayan culture is. With in the first few pages of reading, we learned that in just 100 years (between 1524 and 1625), approximately 94% of the Mayan population had been wiped out. It amazed me how a society can take such a hit, yet still be able to exist today and retain its ancient culture.

I also found it interesting that despite all the European influence, the Mayans failed to assimilate on both an external and internal level. It was hard enough to withstand Spanish force and missionary efforts, but the fact that Mayans were able to preserve individual customs is incredible. As discussed on page 121, even when the parcialidades were forced together into a single community, “parcialidades would preserve their aboriginal identity by continuing to operate socially and economically as separate components rather than merging to form a corporate body.” Lovell articulates this best when he states that the parcialidades “touched but did not interpenetrate” and “co-existed but did not always co-operate.” I found this particularly interesting because I would think that the parcialidades would naturally assimilate due to their close proximity and their shared goal of withstanding the Spaniards. This is extremely unique of the Mayans. In history, native groups generally assimilate and come together to fight against a common enemy. The fact that there are still 20 distinct languages in Guatemala says a lot about their culture, social organizations, beliefs, and overarching values.

On a separate note, I think that Lovell did a great job of giving the reader a different perspective on Guatemalan history. As a world power, Americans often see things from one viewpoint. The history of the United Fruit Company and the overthrow of the Arbenz government really shocked me. It’s appalling that a large company, such as the United Fruit Company, can be so influential, but even more upsetting that Americans were quick to trust the company and automatically felt that it was in the best interest of Guatemala to overthrow the Arbenz government. The excerpt from Time magazine on page 141 shows how much power the media has in our country, and how it can affect other countries as a result. This made me think about how little Americans actually know about world affairs, although we may think that we are extremely educated. Even though the news is often used as a source of knowledge, there will always be a bias attached to this information.

Along the lines of our ethnocentrism, we are often quick to assume that other countries need our help and want to be more like Americans. I thought Lovell brought up a great point on page 148: “…some men discarded Maya-style clothing in favour of Western attire for Indians and guerrillas were often considered synonymous; the abandonment of traditional community dress was a self-protective, not an assimilationist measure.” I know that if I saw a bunch of Mayans wearing American shirts, I would naturally think that the people are striving to be more Americanized, yet this is clearly not the case. Both the reading from this week and last week are definitely starting to change the way I regard other countries and cultures.