Apess

I think you can see Apess’ intelligence and rhetorical ability early on in this piece. While describing what is thought of as uncivilized warfare he says it “is an agreement according to the pure laws of nature, growing out of natural consequences.” This is brilliant because Apess appears to be playing with the Puritan belief that nature was a sacred text, and the word of God could be seen through nature. I think the suggestion here is that the pure laws of nature would have been God’s laws, and that the natives were obeying these laws well before missionaries tried to teach them otherwise.
Apess shows his intelligence and understanding of Puritanism later on in the piece as well. While talking about a chief who turned the other cheek and forgave the Pilgrims for certain transgressions, Apess writes, “It might well be said he was a pattern for Christians themselves.” In other words, this chief shows Christian values and could be looked at the same way Cotton Mather looked at people such as William Bradford, using typology.
Apess plays with the nature theme in other parts of the sermon as well. He says, “How inhuman it was in those wretches, to come into a country where nature shone in beauty, spreading her wings over the vast continent, sheltering beneath her shades those natural sons of an Almighty Being, that shone in grandeur and luster like the stars of the first magnitude in the heavenly world; whose virtues far surpassed their more enlightened foes, notwithstanding their pretended zeal for religion and virtue.” First of all, this sentence parallels Ann Bradstreet’s poem about the beauty of the sun. In this sentence, Apess seems to be suggesting a similar image, that the natural beauty of this country was awe inspiring, and that it would stand to reason that the real Heavenly Kingdom would be even better. At the same time, he is also saying that this was only the case before the Pilgrims, who he labels as pretenders, came over. The sentence also starts with Apess calling the Pilgrims inhuman, a characterization that is suggested by the word the Pilgrims used for Native-Americans, “savage.”
Apess continues a theme of humanity later on in the sermon. At one point he ponders what the natives should do in order to get some sort of revenge. He comes to the conclusion, “we sincerely hope there is more humanity in us than that.” Again he is characterizing the Pilgrims as being less than human, and using a widely held belief about the natives against the Pilgrims.

Refutation of, and contradictions in Occom's Sermon

I will attempt to refute some of Occom's points and preachings, and it will sound nit-picky and dwelling on technicalities but what better way to argue something than use the speaker's own words against them. I have found, when reading Occom's sermon, several contradictions and possibilities for refutation. First, Occom contrasts man and beast for devouring their own kind. Next, Occom presents this idea that life and death are connected and as are sin and death. And lastly, there is this bit about the tongue being an interpreter of the heart and the heart being the place of all sin.

Occum says that the sinner has “...become ill-natured, cruel and murderous; he is contentious and quarrelsome. I said he is worse than the ravenous beasts, for wolves and bears don't devour their own kind, but man does; yea, we have numberless instances of women killing their own children; such women I think are worse than she-tygers.” (p. 10). I refute this point first because it is so obviously wrong. Many different animals may for “packs” such as humans do and will not kill from their own “pack” but they still kill their own kind. “This is not an animal unnatural characteristics: around 140 different species show cannibalistic tendencies under various conditions. Cannibalism is most common among lower vertebrates and invertebrates often due to a predatory animal mistaking one of its own kind for prey. But it also occurs among birds and mammals, especially when food is scarce.” (1). Of course Occom didn't have access to this type of information, but you're telling me he has never seen a wolf killed by another wolf? Apparently, he needs to brush up on his Darwin and his “survival of the fittest.” And for the women killing their children, there are countless numbers of animal species where the mother eats their young. Occom must know this.

The next thing I noticed is an in-text contradiction and it's a little more of a stretch. Occom says that “Life and death are nearly connected; we generally own that it is a great and solemn thing to die. If this be true, then it is a great and solemn thing to live, for as we live so we shall die.” (pg. 8). I can agree with this. But it's where he says “If it had not been for sin, there never would have been such a thing as hell or devil, death or misery.” (pg. 9) where a problem arises. Now, if life and death are connected and there is no life without sin and there is no death without sin, then how do those who don't sin not live an immortal life? If one were to live a purely clean life, devoted to God, without ever sinning then how is it that he should die? And, if you are forgiven all your sins in Confession, how is it that you die cleanly and sin-free. How is it that Christ died without ever sinning? Sure, he was risen and didn't stay dead but he did die at one point and according to Occom this can't be possible.

“It is the heart that is in the first place full of deadly poison. The tongue is only an interpreter of the heart.” (pg. 10). So the heart is the place where sin lives and the tongue is what interprets said sin. Based on scripture, I can believe that the heart is where sin lives as every man is born inherently evil and sinful. But I think it is the mind that is what interprets the sin, the brain is where sin grows and is interpreted, and through the tongue and through action is the way the sin is released. It seems that even Occom himself should believe this because he goes on to say “Sin hath stupified mankind, they are now ignorant of God their Maker; neither do they enquire after him. And they are ignorant of themselves, they know not what is good them.” (pg. 10). If life and death are contrasting and connecting then as are ignorance and knowledge. So there is no ignorance without thought (or lack there of), which comes from the brain. So how is it that sin lives in the heart when Occom states that sin can come from ignorance and that it has stupified mankind, both of which are attributes of the mind. Maybe it's just a simple matter of word choice but before delivering a very important sermon and preaching on something as mighty and holy as the word of Christ, Occom should correct these inconstancies and seek to make refutation impossible.

1. http://www.whereincity.com/india-kids/animals/

Samson Occom

The reading on Occom was very interesting for me to read.   He raises a viewpoint that is different from those conveyed in previous readings.  Occom relies on religion and preaching to get his message across. The sermon he delivered on the day of Moses Paul’s execution shows his intelligence.  I feel as if Occom spent his life as a middle man between the non-Christian Indians and the white Christian settlers.  He claims he was “raised in heathenism,” (pp. 1), so he studied with Wheelock and then converted to Christianity, only to get short-changed later by Wheelock, whom Occom was completely reliant upon. 

The structure of Occom’s sermon was clever and no doubt intentional.  Knowing that his audience would be comprised of whites and Indians, and that they would be gathering at the execution of an Indian man, he would have needed to compose his sermon so that neither group would be outraged at his statements; again, playing the role of the mediator.  The head-note states that the sermon was immensely popular and reprinted many times and suggests that the popularity of it was mainly because people wanted to hear Occom speak out against his own people.  This, to me, reflects a twisted sense of curiosity that people have- to want to attend the sermon only to see how the orator criticizes “his” people, as if it had the potential of being entertaining.  Occom utilizes his sermon to reach out to his mixed audience, and addresses the groups in specific portions in his sermon.  I was critical of this piece, only because it has been reprinted so many times so parts could have been tweaked a bit in the process.  Occom in his own introduction states that it may have been “altered and enlarged in some places,” (pp. 7) making me wonder what parts have been changed.  Regardless of the embellishments, I think it worthy of Occom to have given this sermon in an attempt to create a common ground for people of different races.

The majority of the sermon is dedicated to the discussion of sin.  It is appropriate that he uses alcoholism as his example of sin throughout the sermon, for it is the reason that Moses Paul committed his crime in the first place and it is one thing that Christians, especially Puritans, would have also viewed as being a problem.  “When a person is drunk, he is just good for nothing in the world; he is of no service to himself, to his family, to his neighbours, or his country; and how much more unfit is he to serve God,” (pp. 20) and “Drunkenness is so common amongst us, that even our young men (and what is still more shocking) young women are not ashamed to get drunk,” (pp. 20).  These statements are given in the portion of the sermon directed to his fellow Indians, yet the Christian members in the audience would have agreed with him.  I think that it is important to recognize that Occom does not claim that one race is more likely to sin than another.  “Sin hath stupefied mankind,” (pp. 10) and “thus every unconverted soul is a child of the devil, sin has made them so,” (pp. 11).  By claiming that sin is universal to mankind he recognizes that regardless of race, all people are tempted with sin and that the real enemy is sin and not people of different colors.  Humans should join together and fight evil, instead of fighting each other.  This idea of humanity versus evil seems to be one that society has battled with and is still struggling with today- issues stemming from misconceptions of racial and religious superiority.

William Apess

William Apess is one of the most passionate writers I’ve ever encountered. In fact, his words are so full of passion that they turn into hostility. He felt that the pilgrims wronged his people so greatly, which they obviously did, that he was consumed with feelings of revenge and hatred. I completely agree with Apess’ claims that the Pilgrims were hypocritical. That they would preach forgiveness and mercy but then attack the Indians in such a way. I think a lot of it comes back to the Pilgrims having a sense of entitlement. They felt they were better than the people in England, and then they thought they were better than the Indians; more deserving of the land. They most likely didn’t even consider the Indians to be human. I wonder what sort of audience this eulogy was prepared for. Was he speaking for a large group of people who were sympathetic to Indians? Or was he talking to a diverse group, with the potential of their being some who would find this account of white pilgrims offensive? With the way Apess was writing, a step by step look at massacres and exploitation, I feel that he was trying to convince and change minds.
I looked up the biography of William Apess online and it said that he was a terrible alcoholic which is the disease that eventually killed him. I was surprised by this because he seemed to be an honorable and intelligent man with high morals. (Not that people with alcoholism cant be honorable, intelligent, and moral)I feel like Apess must have been so overwhelmed with grief and frustration at the wrongs committed against the Indians that he couldn’t look beyond the misfortune and live his own life. The last paragraph of the eulogy reads “And you and I have to rejoice that we have not to answer for our fathers’ crimes; neither shall we do right to charge them one to another. We can only regret it, and flee from it; and from henceforth, let peace and righteousness be written upon our hearts and hands forever” (310). Now I believe Apess is saying here that his generation isn’t responsible for what their parents did but that we need to learn from those mistakes. He seems to be saying that we shouldn’t be attacking one another for the past but we also shouldn’t be perpetuating the past. This statement confuses me and doesn’t seem to go with what he has been saying throughout the paper. Apess seems to be very much entangled in the exploitation and destruction of the Indian population. His words come off obsessive and not at all like he is trying to move on from what happened. I felt that he wanted retribution. That he wanted white people to realize how awful they had been and he does so in a very accusatory manner. Regardless of how this eulogy comes off, i'm having a hard time leaving this post without saying that if i was a member of an ethnic group that had been treated like the indians, i probably would have been full of hatred and confusion as well.

Puritan Influence

Reading the Apess piece on King Philip was very eye opening. I think Apess made many accusations that the Puritans would have obviously disagreed with, but it was also the Americans who would have probably disagreed as well. Apess gives a few examples of people who were less than sympathetic to Indians of his own time, examples that were written a bit tongue in cheek, but also meant to show that all was not forgotten or forgiven. I think what was most telling about his work was the way the Puritans treated the Indians when they were captured, particularly the awful passage about the quartering and displaying of King Philip. This is something I certainly would not have expected from them, even considering the mindset they had. That kind of action would have been something they would have reserved as an admonition of the Indians. While I am surprised, I did have to read this piece with a critical eye, just as I have every piece. I do think Apess has a slight slant to his writing, particularly when writing about King Philip toward the end of the war and some of his actions. I do, however, sympathize with him. I think he was more than generous toward the Puritans, and he did more than the Puritans would have done in regard the "turn the other cheek" adage. I feel he was justified to be upset and angry, especially considering all that he and his people had to go through. I also feel the actions that he claims are substantiated, especially when you think of the treatment the Quakers recieved from the Puritans, noted in their own history.

The Puritan influence did not last with just them, however, and carried on throughout American history. The intolerance of other cultures, and the inherent superiority that was given to the white men by the white men exists in ways to this day. It was even more apparent during the time of the readings for today. The Indians were treated as second class citizens, and were even captured by some to be sold into slavery in Europe. The later arrival of Africans to America as slaves seems to be something that is seen as "okay", since the precedent of enslaving an "inferior" or non-Christian race is okay in the eyes of the Puritans. It is the strong Puritan influence that really set the tone for a caste system based on race to be accepted in early America. When looking at the Wheatley and Occom letters, it is obvious that both understand the ways in which Christianity can be hypocritical, much in the same way that Apess calls out the Puritans. Both Wheatley and Occom speak to their own time, and sympathize with the plight each has to face, as well as the plight of Indians and Africans, and African-Americans at the time. Each realize that they are part of a lower class in America, yet each are among the most brilliant of their time. This is something that is lost on the whites of America. This is a part of the lasting Puritan legacy, a legacy that if not promotes, at leasts willingly accepts hegemony.

Eulogy on King Philip

I would like to begin by saying that I found it refreshing reading a text where the speaker sides with the Native Americans, and I think that’s what gave me a deal of trouble as I read “The Eulogy on King Philip”. As I read this, I had the captivity narrative of Mary Rowlandson in the back of my mind. In the narrative she describes her captors as savages who wear necklaces of human fingers and as cannibals. From what I gather from the text, it seemed as if she wasn’t eating enough. I know I wouldn’t readily eat a piece of horse meat after a child had been slobbering on it. In the eulogy the text says that, “It appears that Philip treated his prisoners with a great deal more Christian-like spirit than the Pilgrims did” (300) and then the texts claims that his prisoners weren’t treated as poorly as Rowlandson writes, the prisoners were almost viewed as guests. The text then goes to say that he paid for whatever work she did and she also dined with him on occasion. The eulogy claims that the Native Americans not only treated their prisoners better; but eventually released them, whereas, the Pilgrims just killed their captives.

Another issue that bothered me as I read was that both groups, the Puritans and Native Americans, believe that they’ve been wronged. Rowlandson’s account portrays the Indians flying out of left field, burning down houses and tearing Puritans, completely unprovoked. In sharp contrast, the eulogy talks about an incident when some soldiers arrive in Ohio and slaughter ninety peaceful Native Americans, also completely unprovoked. Both sides claim that they are the victim of atrocities committed by the opposing side. In the accounts of the eulogy and the captivity narrative we see two wildly different biases, one bias where the Puritans are in the wrong and another where the Native Americans are.

I wasn’t sure how I should have read this. I read it with the same critical eye as I read Mary Rowlandson, as I read i wondered how much of this work is embellished and how much is it true? For me, the work raises some questions such as: Is this just one piece of a constant back and forth between Puritans and the Native Americans? Are both sides right in saying they were mistreated? If that is the case, are both groups at fault, or is just one? I’m interested to see what other people think.

Clearly Superstitious

I think in the case of the firm belief in witchcraft and the afflictions of witchcraft on people are an example of superstition and seeing what you want to see. In reading the detailed accounts from Mather of people who have been supposedly been afflicted it is hard to think that there is a logical explanation to the fits of the children that doesn’t involve some sort of magic. However when I thought upon it I started to think that often times if people believe in something enough they will see what they want to see and nothing else. I’m sure that to Mather who firmly believed that there was such a thing as witchcraft it looked as if the girl was indeed being dragged by a chain toward the fireplace and because he really wanted to see signs of witchcraft he wouldn’t see that in actuality the girl was inching herself toward the fireplace. It may beg the question to ask why the children were doing this. It certainly didn’t seem, as in the case with Lawson’s narrative about Salem, that they were doing it to condemn anyone. However it seems that it is not such a crazy thing to happen. It seems likely that in such a repressive environment as a Puritan life that it would cause children to act out. Also since they are all children in the same family, in the same environment, it is likely that they would act out in a similar manner. Also the fact that it said that I believe two of the children were spared from affliction that perhaps those children were not affected by the repressive environment in the same way. It seems odd that someone would just bewitch some of the children and not all. However such psychological thoughts about the acting outs of children were not in Puritan life. Their only explanation for it was witchcraft and I think that they would see them as signs of witchcraft and due to their strong belief in it would mentally block out things that would hint that the children were playacting.
I think that the events at Salem contrast with this in that there were people who played upon people’s superstitions and beliefs. As I was reading it was hard not to laugh at the complete stupidity to not realize that what the so called “afflicted” were doing was carefully orchestrated. The fact that they would have fits in a certain part of their body when the accused moved that body par was just ridiculous. It was very convenient that as soon as the accused were put in jail that the afflictions stopped. One would think such powerful witchcraft couldn’t be hampered by containment. Also the fact that they had visions telling them when the next time they had a fit would be and then magically having a fit at that time (who would have thought) is a trick that could only work on a superstitious audience. It is just sadly laughable how these “afflicted” got away with this.