By means of sign...

There are several propositions out there that describes how the Spaniards actually conquered America; some scholars say it was the technological superiority and guns, while some say it was the European disease that they brought with them to America. However, Todorov provides an interesting alternative analysis that leads him to believe that the main force behind the Spanish conquest was the use of signs.

Todorov in the part concerning Montezuma and signs shows that the Spaniards, and in large, European, communication was focused on relationship between humans, while the Indians in America was more concerned with the relationship between men and the world. He provides several examples that proves how the Aztecs have interpreted the signs and formulated their opinion around their beliefs, which has allowed them to be exploited by the Spaniards. Thus, Todorov makes a strong case that the signs have actually played a huge role in Spanish conquest. In further reading, Todorov provides examples of the usage of signs by Cortes to help in his conquest, although I cannot really provide any summaries, because i have not yet reached that part. However, in general, it seems that Todorov's argument provides some kind of underlying reason behind the fall of the Aztec which can be attributed to different usage of signs by the two sides.

I certainly agree with Todorov's argument that the different cultural interpretation of signs have been a powerful force behind the Spanish conquest. However, one thing that I quite do not understand in Todorov's argument is whether he believed the Spanish actually exploited this difference in understanding of these signs for their own benefit, or whether they somehow proceeded with their own thought and somehow ended up with actions that to modern eyes are seen as "conquest by means of signs." There is a significant difference between the two; the former shows that the Spanish actually understood the Aztecs and used their knowledge of these differences to their advantage, as Columbus did with the eclipse story, and the latter shows that they didn't realize the difference and simply proceeded the way they thought was right, which then somehow ended up being an excellent usage of the difference, albeit unintentionally.

Perhaps I have not yet reached Todorov's explanation to this question of intentionality. However, it would be very important to distinguish this aspect behind the argument that the conquest was achieved "by means of signs" because it would show whether one needs to be aware of the differences in order to make full use out of it, or whether clash and exploitation due to difference is inevitable between two different cultures that have two different ways of interpreting signs, regardless of any other factors. However, in general I agree with Todorov's answer that yes, the signs have played a huge role in the conquest, but as mentioned before, the intentionality of these actions must also be examined so that we may actually learn from history.