Written in 1843 by on William Hickling Prescott in his book 'The Conquest of Mexico' describing a massacre of local Indians when an invitation to a feast was suspected by Spanish soldiery to be the prelude to a treacherous attack on themselves, the continent rings true down the ages.
Man's proclivity to violence runs though history like a river of blood. In the circumstances described,what other option was open to the conquistadors? Presumably they were heavily outnumbered. Their best hope of survival, in fact their only hope, and that a slim one, was to stage a pre-emptive strike, catch their enemy off guard. In such circumstances, speed would have been vital. The enemy would have to be attacked before they could station themselves strategically to make effective use of their numerical advantage with least loss to themselves.
The Spaniards were in no position to negotiate. They were outnumbered, on unfamiliar territory, uncertain as to the strength of their enemies, ignorant of what direction the attack would come from, even what form it would take. They had small hope of success, but no hope at all of survival by any other course. Compromise was not at option. Surrender would mean certain death, probably in a manner of maximum humiliation. If there is no chance of mercy, better to die fighting. Hence the old army adage that no foe is so fierce as a foe without hope.
The Spaniards therefore staged their own attack. Taking their hosts by surprise, they quickly sensed their own advantage and, with courage now re-enforced by hope, pressed this advantage home to stage a massacre. Whether they would have been shown mercy and merely taken prisoner, no-one will ever know. They had the upper hand and they took no risks. The decision, though to a large extent forced, had been, in military terms, a bold one. When it succeeded and the enemy succumbed, the emotion uppermost in the hearts and minds of the soldiery must have been relief, sharpened probably by a fearful determination to make assurance doubly sure, and accompanied too, in the heady, very human reaction of relief by the desire to wreak vengeance - for something that never occurred, but was on its way to doing so.
The massacre of the Indians at Chomla earns no hymn of praise. As a massacre, it is condemned, held up as evidence of man's innate savagery. Yet, on the ground, in the grip of emotions involving the most powerful instinct by man - that of survival - who can say what response ours would have been? Unless we have been in circumstances of just such extreme terror, how can we be to the least degree certain how we would have felt, what we should have done?
Nobody applauds a massacre. But in such circumstances as these, where each side feared the worst from the other, and both felt that their only hope of survival was to resort to desperate measures, perhaps the same, dark, desperate course would have been understandable, whichever side was pressured to take it.
We know, then, more or less, how man in a state of excitement, would be prone to react. The matter rests on what influence in his society has the stronger effect. This in turn is decided by whence such influence originates, how its influence is applied. Is it much the same in every culture, every age? If not, what is the nature of their differences? Wherein lies the cause?? Especially this - wherein lies the Cause - must be identified, analysed, before we apportion the blame.
by guest blogger: Brian Murgatroyd
No comments:
Post a Comment