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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I feel exactly the same way - it certainly was refreshing to read a text that took the side of the Indians (excluding the Morton reading). He takes such a strong stand in arguing the injustice and hypocrisy done to the Indians that I started to shake my head in disbelief and scoff at the injustice in certain passages.
ReplyDeleteYour second bothersome issue is one that also bothered me a lot, and it's one that has actually bothered me all semester. It seems to be in every text we read, but it is never really talked about. That is, the fact that these two cultures were so ready to define the other as "savage" or "hypocritical" that they did not, or could not, take the time to learn about each other. Sure, they made treaties and signed papers, but those pieces of paper meant much more to the Europeans than, say, overall honor and fair play meant to the Indians. Apess brings this up in his text when he mentions that a Chief is willing to overlook some small action that goes against some treaty, whereas the Europeans would have gone to war over the same infraction without hesitation. This "out of left-field" mentality goes along with that; the actions of the Indians in Rowlandson's text seem completely justified (within their culture beliefs) when you realize that the Indians believe that if you kill one of our people, we will take one of yours to replace them. The Europeans defined these actions as "raids," but they also could accurately be defined as replies." Different actions would set off different cultural responses which neither group understood, and it truly frustrates/saddens/gets me pissed to see the same things happening in our generation.
I thought about Mary Rowlandson as well. But it feels good to read a story from the view point of a Native American. He reveals his knowledge of the Puritans in this piece. His words were full of passion and it did come across a little hostile. Apess makes it clear that the Puritans were the ones that did wrong and that they should have followed the teachings of the Indians.
ReplyDelete“But through frail man was made for a nobler purpose—to live, to love, and adore his God, and do good to his brother—for this reason, and this alone, the God of heaven prepared ways and means to blast anger, man’s destroyer, and cause the Prince of Peace to rule, that man might swell those blessed notes. My image is of God: I am not a beast.” (278). This was William Apess main motive for this speech; he was motivating others for the pursuit for equality. His writings influenced those who might not have seen the errors of their ways, fought for the rights of Native Americans and showed that the Puritan’s belief of manifest destiny was not a law of God but a control initiated by man.