After discussing the world of wrestling on Tuesday I got into my car and turned on the radio. On the sportstalk station, the NFL was being discussed. With the approach of the upcoming Super Bowl, they were asking callers to comment on what makes pro football such a popular sport. After listening to them for the entire twenty minute car ride home, I noticed many similarities between it and professional wrestling. The NFL, like the WWF, is a bunch of huge testosterone globs beating the crap out of each other while women with small frames and large breasts stand on the sidelines and hope that their man brings back a victory.
When I got home I had a few minutes to kill before going to work so I popped in a Futurama DVD, and purely by chance played the one (if anyone is familiar) where Bender decided to become a professional wrestler. I am not in any way a fan of wrestling, so I don't really know much about how it works, but the cartoon lampoon made many of the same points that the documentary in class did. Bender started as an unstoppable king who couldn't lose a bout, but when his ratings began to slide, he was transformed into "The Gender Bender" who everyone immediately hated because of the pink tutu and overall gayness of the character.
But getting back on topic, Diaz' narrative was an accessible form of entertainment for the Europeans. His conquest narrative was not much different than the NFL or an episode of Futurama. It is propaganda meant to be consumed and it creates an image in the minds of laypeople. The argument is that either these things are what people want to consume and so it is only natural that things of this nature are produced, or things are produced to directly influence people in a specific way. But looking at history and noting that it has always been dominated and documented by males, it seems to be a vicious cycle. From the time of the first writings or even before, when oral creation stories were passed around, the stories have had a male-dominated theme. Even though the original stories were intended for male audiences they spread throughout the culture forcing everyone to "think like a man" until we come to today where most images have a chauvinistic tone.

Before God we are all equally wise and equally foolish. -- Albert Einstein

First of all, sorry to everyone who attended class on Thursday. I did not. However I did read pages 1-52 of the captivity narrative. But more importantly, I read pages 216-235 of the conquest of new Spain. There are some clear similarities between Spanish expansion and British colonialism, but I think the neatest part is that these, along with the French expansion of northern America, are still seen today. I don't know if analogies work to the third degree, but if I may:
U. S. : England :: Mexico : Spain :: Canada : France.
I don't know a lot about French expansion, but taking a brief look at Diaz' work I see a lot of similarity to British colonialism. The Spanish sailed over to a relatively unknown area and were welcomed with gifts and open arms. I haven't gotten to the part where the natives are either wiped out or forced to live by the rules and speak the language of these newcomers, but I'm positive it happens or else the cooks at work would not be telling me to "chinga tu madre." It is also interesting that, aside from the fact that Aztecs see the newcomers as religious figures, the natives treat both the Spanish in Mexico and the British in Wampanoa(?) in relatively humane fashion. Again, I am only pages into the text, but I assume from previous history classes and spoiler alerts that each conquest ends in the near obliteration of an indigenous people. This says a lot about the two cultures (European and Pre-American American) at the time of European expansion. All of the western world (Europe) was involved in a great race to claim as much land as possible as quickly as possible while the American Indians were content to merely feud amongst the tribes they know of. The main difference is that the Europeans knew that Native Americans existed, but the natives knew nothing of Europe. Or rather, the natives never dared to venture outside of the boundaries of land. There is also an extreme overtone of religious righteousness in this text as well as the captivity narrative. Diaz makes it clear that he is very proud of the Spanish conquest when he says on page 216, "What men in all the world have known such daring?" And to go further, 2 pages later he iterates that Cortez speaks of how "we are all brothers" to Montezuma. Again, I don't know the exact result of this conquest but I have heard a few spoilers, and I don't think the Spanish ultimately treat the Aztecs as brothers.

A taste for irony has kept more hearts from breaking than a sense of humor, for it takes irony to appreciate the joke which is on oneself. - Jessamyn West

I have read the first 16 pages of the Women's Indian Captivity Narratives. Wow. Over the years I have come to convince myself that the conquest of America happened like this: White guys come to America, slaughter the Indians and give them casinos, and then invent the internet. But I've never stopped to consider for more than a brief second the savage nature of retaliation against colonial expansion. The account Mary Rowlandson gives of the ambush by the Indians on Lancaster is quite gruesome. In particular, a description on page 16: "There was one who was chopp'd into the Head with a Hatchet, and stripp'd naked, and yet was crawling up and down." That is an image I wouldn't even expect from Tarantino.












The above picture's purpose is threefold. First, I wanted to fiddle with image upload so I know how to do it when I really need it. Secondly it contrasts sharply with Rowlandson's image of brutality, adding an element of irony to my post and no doubt increasing my overall grade. Third, kittens are cute. But all kittens aside, this time in American history (the beginning of it) is very troubling*. So far in my limited study of early American literature and lifestyle I have encountered a severely sexist, patriarchal society in which 185 accusations of witchcraft (including 19 executions) were issued amongst a brutal, ongoing war between savages and puritanical elitists. I hope there's a happy ending. Or at least one with kittens.


*Apparently the kitten picture offers a fourth, initially unintended purpose: to set up a grossly undignified pun.

Cotton Mather

Cotton Mather's views "on witchcraft" seem to be much different from those of anybody from our time. Oddly enough though, it seems as though he was in the majority in 17th century New England. Every point he makes centers around the Devil, making it hard to take seriously in 21st century context. His rants about the Devil and witchcraft, and witch-meetings, and bewitching, remind me more of lampoons like the Churchlady and my stepmother than a righteous warrior at the forefront of the battle of good and evil. I guess for this class I will have to just somehow get into the mindset that the early American people had. To make an awful analogy, I suppose it would be like being sent by the US Church to colonize Mars in the name of God, and then realizing that people's bodies are quickly and unexpectedly being taken over by small Martians that resemble boll weevils. If we have any hope of maintaining our God-ordained place in the universe then we must kill all the rodents at any cost to preserve the dominance of our side in the ongoing fight between God and weevil. But to get a little more serious, Mather and his fellow New Englanders are absolutely committed to this idea that they are the righteous in this battle. Mather, in the devil's voice, says on page 17 , "What need I meddle with one whom I am sure to have, and hold at the Last-day as my own forever?" Mather thinks he is so righteous that the devil is coming straight for him and others like him (aka Puritans). To be fair, though, I would too. These people are representatives of the greatest empire in human history and they are heading forth in manifest destiny through a savage land that is so far untouched by God's people. If Satan's gonna worry about converting the majority of people to his side, he damn well better get these guys. If you get the hard ones, all the stragglers will follow suit. On page 17, Mather backs it up: "If the holy God should any where permit the devils to hook two or three wicked scholars into witchcraft... the Toyls of Hell shall be perhaps inextricably cast over them..." I know this isn't a philosophy class, but isn't it interesting to suppose that this is all 100% true and everything said in the witch trials was fact and not exaggeration or misrepresentation? Suzanne's comment especially struck me in class when she quoted someone I don't recall who said, (paraphrase) the most dangerous thing the devil can do is convince everyone he does not exist. This quote is very intriguing and inspiring in a metaphorical and poetic sense, but if we are living in the neo-Christian paradigm where scripture is taken quite literally, then we are all boned. One other thing I would like to bring up is Mather's comment on page 25. He speaks of a Raven crying from the top of a tree, "Read the Third of Collosians and the Fifteenth!" I tried to look up Collossians 3 and fifteen, but the book has only four chapters. Do I have a faulty Bible, or am I misinterpreting Mather?

*Source: The Oxford Study Bible. Edited by Jack Suggs, et al. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.