Mary Rowlandson's Tale

Mary Rowlandson’s account of how she was captured by the Native Americans shows the horrific aspects of living in America during such a tumultuous time. Many of the passages we have read about the New World are of hope, such as Columbus’ depiction of a beautiful and fertile land in America or Cotton Mather’s telling of the lives of William Bradford and John Winthrop, who were considered “American Saints” for the sacrifices they made in the colonies. There have been a few of the works that have been a bit troubling, such as the accounts on the way that the Native Americans were treated, but they were all written by Europeans, save for a few that were written by converted Native Americans. This account, unlike the ones of the Native Americans (whose are no less important than the European settlers) shows the firsthand account of being a victim in the war between the Native Americans and the Europeans.

The horrific events that occur in Mary Rowlandson’s tale show true struggle. She mentions how her husband was taken captive and threatened to be killed, how her sister, brother-in-law, and nephew were killed, and how she was taken captive with her small child. They had both been wounded, and the child eventually dies while they are at a Native American Camp. When she goes to try to see her other child at a Native American camp nearby, she is forced away while her child cries. She rarely got to see her son as well. After this whole ordeal, she bought back, but as she said in the beginning, her house has been burned. She talks of seeing the “extreme vanity of the world: One hour I have been in health, and wealthy, wanting nothing. But the next hour in sickness and wounds, and death, having nothing but sorrow and affliction” (Baym 266).

The accounts of the Europeans settlers being victims were probably read more so than the accounts of the attacks on the Native Americans, because of two reasons. First, no civilization really wants to accept the fact that they have done wrong. It is easier to blame someone else than yourself. The Europeans were more likely to focus on the accounts of other Europeans being attacked as justification for fighting the Native Americans instead of realizing that it was the Europeans that provoked the attacks through the harsh treatment of the Native Americans. Second, the tales of the Europeans being victims makes it real and tangible to the readers, because they are people that they can identify with. They can feel the fear of having their home burned and family killed because they could have been settlers just like the people living there. It would have been harder for them to identify with the Native Americans because they were not of that culture and probably viewed them as savages, especially after the accounts of the Native American attacks on people such as Mary Rowlandson.

Thomas Morton's Maypole

In the passage written by Thomas Morton, it is clearly evident that he believes that he is much smarter than the Puritans. The book states that “he had the advantages of a traditional education provided for a young man of means” (Baym 138), which means that he came from a wealthy family. He appears to have been a spoiled little brat, judging from his taunting of the Puritans and how he evaded punishment once he got back to England. However, it is through the multiple references to Greek and Roman culture that we see his pompous attitude towards the ignorance of the Puritans.

When a maypole was erected on May Day at Morton’s town, Merry Mount, the Puritans saw it as a worship of not only a Roman goddess, but a promiscuous one at that. Morton seizes this moment of ignorance on the Puritan’s part to make fun of them. Whereas the Puritans thought that the maypole represented the goddess Flora, a goddess of fertility, Morton said that it really represented Maia, a goddess of spring. It is interesting to note, though, that Flora was also a goddess of spring, as the Romans associated fertility with not only conceiving children, but with a good planting season as well. In any case, Morton makes fun of the Puritans by saying, “The Lady of Learning which they despise, vilifying the two universities with uncivil terms…not considering that learning does enable men’s minds to converse with elements of a higher nature than is to be found within the habitation of a mole” (Baym 143). The Lady of Learning that Morton speaks of is Minerva, the goddess of wisdom, and the two universities that the Puritans dislike are Oxford and Cambridge. Morton sees this dislike as a sign of being uncivilized. The Puritans probably disliked learning about Greek and Roman cultures because they represented polytheistic cultures. It is also important to keep in mind that people had to be well off the go college, so there might be a bit of bitterness on the part of those who couldn’t. If the Puritans were all that well off they could have just paid the monarchy off to quit harassing them, and then they wouldn’t have had to move in the first place.

It is clear that Morton was concerned with money, since he came over from England to deal in the fur trade. This makes the passage where he talks about Diogenes’ tub even meaner than it already is, because Diogenes was a philosopher who was unconcerned with status or money (as most philosophers). This was clearly a polar opposite from Morton, who came from a rich family. In the passage, he insinuates that “Captain Shrimp” (aka Myles Standish) should want to have “crept into [Diogenes’ tub] out of sight” (Baym 145). It seems that Morton was pointing out the difference in the statuses of the two men.

I believe that the references to the Greek and Roman cultures illustrate Morton’s belief that he is better than the Puritans because the references make him look smarter. The references are a show of his knowledge of culture, and of civilizations that were dominant in learning, which he believe the Puritans know nothing about.

Treatment of the Native Americans

While I was reading about the North American explorers, the thing that jumped out at me the most was Bartolome de las Casas’ telling of the atrocities that were committed against the Native Americans by the Spanish. Not only were the suffering from illness brought by the Europeans, they also had their lands taken away, women raped, and people killed in the most horrific ways. There is no cause for such violent actions, and I believed it happened because the Spanish didn’t see the Native Americans as people, but as animals. Casas wrote that the Spanish soldiers took babies and threw them in the river, saying “Boil there, you offspring of the devil!” (Casas 37). The Native Americans were taken advantage of when they thought that the white people were gods, and when they figured out that this wasn’t the case, they fought back. However, Casas writes that “the wars of the Indians against each other are little more than games played by children” (Casas 37). The Native Americans most likely did not want to cause much bloodshed between tribes. Still, the Spaniards probably used this as an excuse to abuse them even more. These people who called themselves “Christians” slaughtered the Native Americans in groups of thirteen to represent Jesus and his Apostles. Somehow, I don’t think Jesus would agree with this. And then, to top it off, later settlers wanted to convert these people to Christianity.

Whatever government that was set up at the time in the Americas was obviously not doing its job. When Casas talks about the pearl divers that were sent into the depths to retrieve pearls, he writes that “all of [the Lucayan Indians] were publically sold… the unjust judges did nothing to stop it” (Casas 39). The judges at the time had good reason, at least to them, because the Native Americans were making the Spanish money. They were enslaved, fed poorly, beaten, and occasionally eaten by sharks. They did the dirty work that the Spaniards didn’t want to do. If the judges had done the right thing and prohibited the capture and sale of the Native Americans, the Spanish would have to take the risks of diving, and probably wouldn’t have turned up such a profit.

Therein lies the reason that Casas wrote these letters. He was trying to persuade Spanish government to do something about the horrible things that were going on in the Americas. They appointed him “protector f the Indians”, and he tried to remedy the situation by bringing in black slaves, which doesn’t make any since at all for a person that was fighting for human rights. He eventually sees this. Later on, Casas wins the support of the Pope, which leads him to win the support of Emperor Charles V, who outlaws the enslavement of the Native Americans. When Casas tries to enforce this in the Americas, it doesn’t go over well at all. He ends up just going back to Europe to write about it. Meanwhile, the Native Americans continued to suffer for centuries afterwards at the hands of not just the Spanish, but the other explorers as well.

An Analysis of Red Jacket's Speech to the Senate

The oratory devices used by Red Jacket in his 1805 speech to the United States Senate exemplify the necessary elements of a strong, hard-hitting argument. His speech was in response to the statement of Jacob Cram, who said that “there is but one religion, and but one way to serve God, and if you do not embrace the right way, you cannot be happy hereafter” (Baym 445). Red Jacket thought different, and spoke for his tribe in the address.

The most notable aspect of his speech is the repetition of the word brother. It begins every new section of the speech, and serves to create a calmer feeling towards those to which he was speaking. It shows respect and honor, which can sway the opposing side to the orator’s side. This is also evident in Tecumseh’s speech to the Osages in a rally cry against the white people. Red Jacket’s case, however, was a proposition of peace, not war.

While being tactful about the subject of religion, Red Jacket still clearly points out that he believes that his religion is the best. In his speech, he points out that “if there is but one religion, why do you white people differ so much about it?” (Baym 446). He doesn’t come right out and claim that the white people’s religion is wrong; he simply points out a weak point in Cram’s statement. The art of tact is demonstrated wonderfully here, as Red Jacket does not make a direct statement, but poses his idea as a question to ponder about.

Red Jacket further pushes this idea of tact by taking tiny stabs at the white people that can mean more than one thing. For instance, he says that the white people “are a great distance from home, and we do not wish to detain you” (Baym 445). This could be construed as simple politeness for the white people to go to their houses for dinner and such, but Red Jacket probably meant it to mean that North America was the Native American’s homeland, and the white people’s homeland is over the sea, and that they should go back. The idea that this is what Red Jacket really meant is enforced when he goes on to talk about how Native American life was before the white people arrived.

This leads to the best part of Red Jacket’s argument. Red Jacket talks about how the Native Americans cared for the white people when they first came to America. He pointed out how there were just a few white people, and the Native Americans took pity on them and helped them. He points out that “[Native Americans] gave [white people] corn and meat; they gave [Native Americans] poison in return” (Baym 446). By pointing out how the Native Americans helped the Europeans when they didn’t have an obligation to creates a sense of debt that the white people owe the Native Americans.

Red Jacket’s closing section of his speech sums up his answer to Cram. He says that “[Native Americans] do not wish to destroy [the white people’s] religion, or take it from you. [Native Americans] only want to enjoy their own” (Baym 447). This strong statement secures an excellence speech, and surely made the white people question their actions.