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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I completely agree with this wall post. I do not think that Apess is trying to suggest ways in which his people can become better citizens and not treat natives so harshly, but he is almost accusing them of performing horrible actions against the Indians, in the hopes of changing people's minds about how to handle the situation with the native peoples who do not entirely follow the Puritan religion. My favorite part in this reading is when Apess writes on page 282, "But when a few red children attempt to defend their rights, they are condemned as savages by those, if possible, who have indulged in wrongs more cruel than the Indians." He says this shortly after he is discussing how many of the Pilgrims would rob the Indians and the Indians would defend themselves. I love how he writes true accounts like this because he is extremely passionate about how he feels on the way that the Native Americans have been wronged by the Pilgrims so he is giving information out instead of "bashing" the Pilgrims or telling readers how to think. He is letting readers adopt their own opinions from what Apess writes. I also like on page 287 when Apess writes, "But must I say, and shall I say it, that missionaries have injured us more than they have done us good, by degrading us as a people in breaking up our governments and leaving us without any suffrages wahtever or a legal right among men? Oh what cursed doctrine this is!" I think when he writes things like this, he is extremely passionate about how he feels and he wants his readers and his people to know how wrong they are all to believe in a religion in which does not back them up as individuals and takes the rights away from other groups. I think in this entire writing, Apess stands his ground, and I like a lot of the points that he makes.
ReplyDeleteAs far as what audience he was speaking to, I don't think Apess cared. I admit, the thought of what his audience included and how they would have recieved this did cross my mind, but I don't think it crossed the author's. It didn't matter to Apess what the pre-conceived notions of his audience were; his goal here, as Nicki says, is both to convince us that the Pilgrims were the real savages, and to point out their unbelievable hypocrisy when dealing/killing the Indians.
ReplyDeleteNicki, as far as your confusion over the conclusion being in conflict with Apess's voice over all, I think you touch on it when you mention his overwhelming grief and frustration. But rather than this coming from lack of retribution for the Indians, I think it simply comes from his grief and frustration in relation to history overall. He sees how wrong the Pilgrims treatment of the Indians was, but he also sees how the civilized world will always define war as being "the best method of bowing to the haughty tyrants, Man, and civilizing the world," (p277). History will repeat, there is nothing you can do to change it or redefine it, and the extreme injustice done to the Indians will simply fall into the category of that dark side of history; that's enough to make anyone grieve for all "civilized man."