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.
I think what I found most intriguing from this piece is how much it contrasts with some of the ideas of Puritanism. The idea that someone can be saved through repenting and confession is an extremely non-Puritan idea. I know it mentions that he was evangelical and this was after Puritanism had begun to die out but it is still interesting to see these viewpoints after all that we've read this semester. I too wonder at what's been changed from the original sermon. I hope it's not much because I think that this is a very intriguing piece to have been delivered at an execution.
ReplyDeleteThe whole drinking speech reminded me of a few sermons my roommate has given me around 3 on Fridays and Saturdays... I loved Occum's speech, (it may have been the first sermon I really liked). I could be wrong on this, but I think the Puritans felt that repentance was important, but as far as heaven and hell went you could still just as easily end up in the latter if you were not one of the chosen saved. The difference is according to evangelicals is that heaven has more of an open door for those willing to listen to the gospel. The Puritans however could repent, but if you weren't one of the chosen ones, you weren't one of the chosen ones. So why behave? Well misbehaving was a clear sign that you weren't one of the chosen ones. I love that the Puritans and Evangelicals seem almost impossible to reconcile, but one needs to remember that they are both Christian groups and on some level have many similarities... hopefully more similarities than differences.
ReplyDeleteThis was also one of my favorite pieces. I found it interesting how Occom followed the ideaology of the group for his fellow native Americans, which was something we all know was appreciated by the Puritans. Occom after giving his sermon to everyone focuses in on his "fellow bretheren". He writes, "I shall now address myself to my fellow Indians, my bretheren and kindred accoring to the flesh".
ReplyDeleteOccom is describing how the alcoholism of the Indians needs to be abolished. He does not want to see his family, his group, to die of sin. It seemed profound for him to step up and speak against one of his party. This piece proceeds to explain that the Puritans were influential in some cases. This native American man formed to Chritianity and hoped to form his fellow people to it as well.
I think that Occom did a great job in this sermon and took on a huge task. At any moment either the Puritans or the Indians could have erupted and it could have caused an all out racial battle. What I feel his goal was (and what he did best) was to prove that they are all Christians under the same God. He did not want them to see each other as different but the same through their beliefs. He mentions through out the whole thing to "remember as Christians" or something along those lines. He does this in such a way that I feel the crowd must have forgot for a minute that race or nationality was even an issue. I think that the Puritans went to his speech (and others continued reading it) to feel victorious. I feel that they wanted to see how great they were that they had made an Indian trade on his own people. Instead what they got was a very intelligent man who probably surprised both sides. He speaks of being a good person and a good Christian. Both of these readings I feel show a change as we have gotten deeper into the period and show how America slowly began to loosen it's racial prejudices (not to say that it is purely clean now unfortunately).
ReplyDelete