Okay...so let's see how this works this week...
In this week 3 we, as a class, focused on our reading of Women's Indian Captivity Narratives (Penguin), particularly Mary Rowlandson's narrative.
Right when I first began reading I found it to be really interesting how concerned the editor was in the introduction to the collection with the particular "version" of the text was being presented to us. In class we discovered that it is impossible to come into contact with any first edition of Mary Rowlandson's narrative because they were all literally read to shreds (not always a bad thing)when the first edition was published and distributed. In the article "The Indian Captivity Narratives of Mary Rowlandson and Olive Oatman: Case Studies in the Continuity, Evolution and Exploitation of Literary Discourse" by the collection's editor Kathyrn Zabelle Derounian-Stodola there is really good breakdown given of how each edition evolved and was tapered to become what the readers wanted to hear rather than an authentic, vivid account of what happened.
When Mary first sat down and penned her narrative, she did so for purely personal reasons--a way to try and clear her head of what had happened. However, at the encouragement of Increase Mather (familiar family name?)she agreed to go public with her accounts and allowed her narrative to be published. It was first published as The Soveraignty and Goodness of God, this title appropriately gave it an autobiographic feel and and "stressed the captivity narratives religious dimension and its author's role as an orthodox Puritan woman" (Stodola 37). Interestingly, by the time the fourth edition came out the title had been changed to A true history of the Captivity and Restoration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson--this edition "described Rowlandson to English readers as 'a minister's wife in New-England' and capitalized on what it described as the 'Cruel and Inhumane usage she underwent among the Heathens'" (37).
As Rowlandson's story was told and retold it was manipulated and sensationalized, making it into a tale that the settlers could use to their advantage. They could easily instill fear in newcomers and make the Indians out to be brutal savages. When I think of barricaded forts surrounding little "cities" I think of Medieval Europe not our homeland. However, I found this website and it names over 20 forts in Ohio alone that housed settlements in the early parts of our state's history in order to protect against Indian attacks. There are also some really good "old" images on this page . It is because of accounts such as Rowlandson's that in all reality became a form of propaganda. People were so scared that they went to almost extreme measures to protect themselves. Of course there were also other realities of Indian attacks and there was great brutality in the King Phillips war but there was no effort made on the part of the settlers to see what it is that they were doing to these people in order to spark such violence. It was much easier to presume the accountability of the Devil or "evil" in general rather than look at their own part in the blame.
Quite frankly, I don't think that this is ever what Rowlandson wanted. I think that she had a small soft spot in her heart for the troubles of the Indian. She came to understand what they're lives were like and if she had been able to see what eventually happened to them it would have broken her heart. It breaks my heart just to think about it. I have worked on the Ogalala Lakota Indian Reservation in South Dakota and been to see Wounded Knee, my [adopted] aunt is pure Navajo Indian and these stories really eat away at me and maybe I read into Rowlandson's occasional empathetic words too much but I think that she really, truly had a soft spot for these people. In the last pages of her narrative she continually mentions "vanity" and it seems that she is almost disgusted with her people's obsession with it. She has seen what it is to live a truly "pure" life and she must have questioned some of the cultural ways [i.e.obsesseion with status, etc.] of her fellow Puritans. I love the moments when we begin to see a flicker of am emotional connection, such as on page 37 when she speaks of meeting with Tom and Peter and how even "though they were Indians, I gat them by the hand, and burst into Tears; my heart was so full that I could not speak to them". It is sad to imagine that these parts were probably abolished from the text as the various editions were published. For me, these are the moments I waited for and completely sucked in like some scene from (but with obvious gender role reversal).
What do you guys think? Am I being too dramatic? Do you really think that huge forts being constructed in Ohio could be attributed to some captivity narratives from women was this really the "embryonic stages of our national psychology" [as Suzanne put it]? What kind of role do you really think the Puritan ministers played? Am I really crazy for drawing a connection between Dances with Wolves and Puritan times? lol (maybe?). I digress.
I loved to movie we watched in class--not just because it was a movie...but rather because it gave a really good background to the reading. I am so glad that we got the Indian perspective. I know I got a little carried away with my supplementary material but thanks for reading!
Favorite Quotes:
"They had turned him out of the Wigwam, and with him an Indian Papoos, almost dead (whole Parents had been killed) in a bitter cold day, without fire or clothes; the Young man had nothing on, but his shirt and waistcoat: This sight was enough to melt a heart of flint" (31). Melt a heart of flint... Love it!
"Then also I took my Bible to read, but I found no comfort here neither" (30).
"I had taken two or three Pipes, I was presently ready for another." (24) This goes out to Christine...but I also love how it shows her comfort level growing.
These are my top three...I could write dozens more but I don't want to be a bore...I love, love, loved this reading! Have a happy weekend!
I agree wholeheartedly with you. In fact, I'd say you were able to translate your thoughts much better than I did (or perhaps I just took it one step in a different direction). What remains clear to me, however, is that we both agree Rowlandson could not, at the end of her troubles, completely turn her back on her own captives.
ReplyDeleteIt was in the captivity that she was able to see the other side of the story, and though I don't believe it's a simple context in which she was able to work in, what I was trying to put down in my blog is part of what I think you're trying to get at: the captivities themselves complicated the relations between Indian and Puritan, and not just BECAUSE of the violence and the terror from both ends, but because it necessitated, especially from the captives themselves, an understanding of Indian life and thought.
Also, I think it definitely helps open the door for an empathic or even sympathetic interpretation of the Puritan, if only their women (Haha!). They too were just mere mortals, and through these narratives, as you believe (at least from what I read here), they were capable of so much more than simple, blind religiosity and Faith. They too could be whole beings with the power to control their destinies, and escape their fates (as Rowlandson did), should it be necessary for their survival.
Hmm...what a pity this wasn't taught in a way the rest of the Puritan County could understand. What a shame it had to end (and begin) in violence.
Great post. Loved it. And I see we have the same taste in art. Haha.
Cheers!
Good moves to the text, solid research and personal connections, nice work.
ReplyDeleteI feel like the Puritans are at least Christian enough to see the humanity in the Native Americans. At least a little. I hope. And I think that being in such close proximity with a people recalls you to your own life, and the similarities to theirs. I think Rowlandson did have a soft spot. She'd lived among them. There is no losing that knowledge of humanity.
ReplyDelete