Todorov and Schmitt

In class we discussed Speaker for the Dead and The Conquest of America. I found the discussion concerning whether the Conquest was good or bad interesting. I found comparisons between that topic and Schmitt.

I think that as a whole, the Conquest was a bad thing. Jessie mentioned three points that should be considered in deciding whether it was good or bad. First, the world we live in now, the technology, the civilization, is the result of the Conquest. Second, the conquistadors did not know the magnitude of their impact on American culture. For example, they could not control the decimation of the Indians by disease. Finally, deciding whether or not it was morally reprehensible (I’ll get back to this point later). I think a fourth point should be added to this discussion, the overall impact of the Conquest on the people of the Americas, the Indians. Todorov discusses the so-called “ten plagues” that affected the Indians. Even though the conquistadors did not know the impact of their actions, they did more than just kill the Indians indirectly through contact with them. They enjoyed persecuting and torturing the Indians. Therefore, because of the conquistadors’ impact on the Indian population, I think the conquest was a bad thing.

Getting back to the point of moral reprehensibility, another question is whether the conquistadors themselves were good or bad. Though Martin said that having been in that situation, the conquistadors could not be blamed, I disagree. I believe that just because the views during that time period differed, it did not give them an excuse to ignore questions of morality. In Speaker, Ender says that you can’t judge people until you know their story, but at the same time as he explains Marcaos actions I don’t think he excuses him from all moral reprehensibility. This made me think of Schmitt and his discussion of choosing the enemy. The way the state chooses the enemy is arbitrary, it cannot be justified; it simply is. But, the individual on the other hand, has different decisions to make from that of the state.

“The individual may voluntarily die for whatever cause he may wish. That is…thoroughly private matter – decided upon freely. The economically functioning society possesses sufficient means to neutralize nonviolently, in a “peaceful” fashion, those economic competitors who are inferior, unsuccessful or mere “perturbers.” Concretely speaking, this implies that the competitor will be left to starve if he does not voluntarily accommodate himself” (Schmitt, 48).

Essentially this says that judgment of the morality of the state – or in this case we can say the Conquest as a whole – must differ from judgment of the morality of individuals. And though this statement also says that if members of the state do not conform to the state they will be forced to, because the Conquest in itself was bad, this still does not excuse the conquistadors from the fact that their actions were wrong.