It seems that these two texts are in agreement or rather one is portrayed in the other at different ideas. In “Questions of Conquest” the author writes a lot about the lack of freedom of the Incas and the Indians. In “Freedom and Democracy” the author writes about how as children we begin to be taught to suppress things and begin to our freedom, and how or why we do such things.
“Questions of Conquest” talks about how the Incas were this amazing civilization but that they were demolished because they had this hierarchy of power that strengthen and weakened them at the same time. Llosa says that this major down fall of the Incas was because the great almighty power had been captured and they didn’t have any original thinking and they were massacred. There is a similar thought that is stated in “Freedom and Democracy,” which is that as children we are taught all these different facts or information and then we when are adults and we are given a more creative problems we are dumb founded and confused because “education too often results in the elimination of spontaneity.” The Incas were in essence like the children above, they had been taught to follow the orders of the higher power and that was it, no initiative or creativity, just taking order. This on the other hand had worked out for them very well in terms of food dispersal and other thing that kept the Incan civilization afloat until the Spanish came.
Both texts mention the illusion of freedom that we all seem to have. In “Freedom and Democracy” the author talks about the impression of “the insignificance of the individual,” in fascism and the impression we get form the ideals of “the right to express or thoughts” that we have our freedom. In “Questions of Conquest” Llosa talks about how the Incas and Indians also had the impression of freedom even though they were always under the control of the higher power, whether it be a god or an authority figure.
What an explanation! Firstly, I thoroughly agree with you with the fact that both articles describe the illusion of freedom even though a authoritative entity is surely present. I also agree with you that the children and the Incas just follow orders from the hierarchy, which is why it is interpreted as an "illusion" of freedom. Yet, these principles leads me to more questions. How would you define freedom? There are many different ways to interpret this, which is why it is very philosophical. Also, if we are living in a society where freedom is but an illusion, then what alternative way to live society is there? If there is a possibility, then how would it be moderated;further more, would there even be a hierarchy? These questions and such a society may never exist, but there is always a possibility to make things better, but as you said, it is the mindset of the people that change societies, not the government. Nonetheless, this was a fantastic response to the two articles and i hope you take some time to contemplate about the questions asked within this response.
ReplyDelete