Due Date: Wednesday, February 4 (by midnight)
Assignment: In this, as in subsequent blog entries, we ask for your critical reflection on the themes discussed in lecture and in your readings. If you have strong personal reactions, critiques, or praise to offer one or more the texts in question (or if you want to argue against a point made in lecture) please do follow your interests. Each week, however, we will be offering a suggested prompt that you may also choose to address.
Grading Rationale: You will not be graded on length, per se (though you should aim for at least two substantial paragraphs). Rather, we are looking for an engaged and critical response to the course materials. Be bold, smart, and opinionated, and you should do very well.
Suggested Prompt:
These past two weeks we have been learning about the European encounter of the New World, accounts of which were formative for the seminal works of many European philosophers of the time. We have also begun to see how European world views shaped the ways in which the peoples of Native America were understood and treated. How did these accounts figure in the project of colonization at that time, how Europeans saw themselves at home and in the world, and/or the imagination and foundation of America? In other courses (the Core, perhaps), you have likely read the works of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, among others. How were these texts presented in your other courses, and how does that reading differ, if at all, from the one offered in our course?
Important Note: To ensure that you receive credit, please include your first and last names at the end of your blog entry.
Happy blogging!
I don't think we can say that there was a standardized colonial project in the beginning since there were multiple countries involved and also because the discovery of this new world was so unexpected. As a culture enmeshed in the philosophy of determinism, surprises could shock Europe and were not welcome. Because of this multifaceted genesis, it is hardly surprising that a number of theories, sometimes contradictory, would emerge and that it would take philosophers some time to reconcile various threads. Once accomplished, however, colonizers could proceed with confidence. As discussed in class and in a number of readings, two primary characterizations of Natives resulted: the Noble Savage and the Savage Savage. While some readings note that the creation of these two groups came from the fact that Natives encountered later knew of the Europeans and their ways and so fought them, thus causing the Europeans to view them as another 'other,' I tend to think that this is not necessary at all. Considering the diversity of tribes and the relative isolation islands can cause, it is hardly surprising that not all Natives would react the same to explorers. Likewise, not all Europeans introduced themselves in the same way; some were violent, others less so. From the chaos and conflict in the New World came documents and eyewitness accounts for philosophers and arm chair explorers to investigate. Ever since Aristotle the Western mind has loved binary classification so it seemed only natural that the Western counterpart would be binary: noble and savage.
ReplyDeleteAs to this separation being used to justify colonization (we must come in and protect the Arawaks from the Caribs), I'm inclined to not read it so deeply. While I'm sure many wished to save the Arawaks, I feel that colonization, strictly speaking, didn't need justification because it would have occurred regardless. Saying the Europeans justified colonialism implies they wished to save face in front of a judge but since the ultimate judge was God and they were confident they were doing his work (proselytizing and keeping the earth under man's dominion), who needs justification? Some engaged in exploitative and tortuous treatment of the natives, in which case justification would have been needed for the judgment of States, but on the whole, I feel most Europeans didn't feel they needed justification.
I think this thought that justification wasn't needed says a lot about the Europeans of the time. As a culture so interested in controlling the lives of others, they seemed to never question their role as the controller; an irrational, if hardly surprising, omission. This omission still exists today for it is easy to be lulled into Western solipsism as we read Rousseau's account of the noble savages; never considering their own perspective or whether we should read the work as presenting itself as fact. We take what he says because it makes defining the state of the world that much easier, just as earlier Europeans did.
-Paul McCormick
I first encountered the works of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau in CC, and I had little understanding of the historical context in which they were written. I read these text in a sort of vacuum, and now, adding an understanding of the social, historical, and political atmosphere in which these texts were written has lead to me see them from a whole new perspective. I was aware of the philosophical tradition to render an account of a hypothetical condition of humanity before the state’s foundation—the state of nature. What I was did not know was that many of these varying version were based on beliefs about the state of Native Americans. Hobbes’s original conception of the state of nature was a condition of war. Every man had one objective and that was to survive at all costs. This theory of man encompasses the view of America as the land of the fallen. The Caribs, with their alleged savage cannibalism, open hostility, and constant need of war, embody the natural man as envisioned by Hobbes. Hobbes, of course, believed that original man lived solitary and short lives, and the Caribs were, indeed, a tribe. However, they were a tribe of hateful, evil individuals, who were, by all means, not in organized civil state. Surely, they were in a primitive, wicked state. John Locke’s theory countered that of Thomas Hobbes. Locke believed that the state of man began with reason, which gave each man certain unalienable rights. Rousseau, on the other hand, believed that in the original state, man was pure and innocent. Society, according to Rousseau, has corrupted mankind. Locke and Rousseau’s idea of the original state of man represents the view of Native Americans as good people in a relatively young state of social development. Rousseau has even said that the Native Americans are the closest group of people to his theory of the original state of nature. The mythologize Arawaks symbolize this ideal.
ReplyDeleteThese two very different views both demean and misrepresent the Native Americans. Having these two lines of philosophical tradition depict two differing stereotyped views of the Native America perpetuated the belief that Native Americas were not on the same plane of humanity as European Americans. Just as Aristotle’s justification of slavery reinforced the status quo at the time and continued to legitimize slavery for centuries, these polarized and simplified philosophical views of Native Americans have enabled the attempted extinction of many different cultures. By comparing the Native Americans to lower state of man, philosophers validated the political imperative to deny the alterity of these people. If Native Americas weren’t the other, just a less advanced version of humanity, then the Europeans felt that they had the duty to introduce civilization to these youngster, or, in the case of the inhumane Caribs, eliminate the threat they presented to civilization. This process of justifying the current actions and attitudes is a classic case of cognitive dissonance, except in this instance, it had wide-scale and incredibly detrimental effects to the native peoples of America. The Europeans thought of themselves as civilized, God-fearing men, but they also saw the opportunity in American and the Native Americans. In order to resolve the tension between their self-beliefs as ultimately just, good men and their actions in America along with their treatment of the Indians, the colonizers changed their beliefs as opposed to their actions. Rather than changing their personally significant self-beliefs, they found it easier to dehumanize the native people. I do not believe that Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau led to the demise of the cultures of Native Americans. The process was much too complex and intricate to attribute to just a few men. I just believe that the ideas represented in their works perpetuated ideas that oversimplified the colonization taking place in American and fed the popular, dissonance-reducing ideas about the state of Indians. I know that I have the advantage of time, but I still feel that as the greatest thinkers of their times, these men maybe should have attempted to look beyond the bounds of their social, political, and historical context to see the advantages of alterity.
Sort of a side note: The idea of the vanishing Indian is still apparent today, in part due to the under representation of Native Americans in the media. This is illustrated by the fact that the squeal to the popular film, Twilight, is having to resort to open casting calls in order to find enough Native American actors to fill the role of young members of an Indian tribe living on a reservation in Washington state.
-Caitlin Stachon
First and foremost, the egocentrism of most Europeans greatly affected the colonization of the Americas. For whatever reason, this reminds me of the idea of “The White Man’s Burden,” which didn’t come about as a concrete idea until the poem was written in 1899, and it was mostly (if not always) applied to the civilizing of African slaves. Yet I am reminded of it in regard to Europe’s view of America and its inhabitants; the idea that Europeans had some obligation to “better” the lives of Native Americans, by giving them Christianity and civilization. Some surely advocated a peaceful process of civilizing and converting the Native Americans, but most (or at the very least those in power) decided that slavery and/or death was the only way. Some were fueled by their disgust at the perceived savagery of the natives, while others borrowed ideas of Aristotle regarding natural slavery, and they thought the best thing to do for Native Americans was to help them realize the full potential of humanity, which of course happened to coincide with the position of Europeans in the “social evolutionary timeline.”
ReplyDeleteThis leads me to the idea that the Europeans possessed a definite excitement at the infancy of America, excitement at the idea that no one “civilized” had ever before settled there or even been there (wrong though it may be). For the Europeans, this surely meant that America was a land that could be molded into anything Europe wanted it to be (and the same for its inhabitants); for many of the earlier countries, it could be a trading post to allow the mother country all the riches it could dream of, for other later settlers, it could be a city on a hill, the perfect community, a heaven on earth, where freedom reigned. I am convinced Europeans thought of America as American-less, looking past the pesky little practicality that was the various settlements of Native Americans. They dreamed of a world all their own, which either meant enslaving the natives or teaching them to become European, as if rearing a child to become the perfect civilized man. They hoped to create a world in their own image, acting more as gods than men.
In Contemporary Civilization (Almighty Heart of the CORE!), we read the arguments of Sepulveda and de las Casas, Hobbes, Locke, and recently Rousseau. The works of Sepulveda and de las Casas, however, were the only ones that really, for my class in particular, led to any substantial discussion regarding Native Americans. Sepulveda used the ideas of Aristotle, namely his theory regarding natural slavery, and applied it to the Native Americans, providing ample reason to the men of the time to enslave Native Americans (it must not have taken much). The class I was in, for lack of a better term, ripped apart Sepulveda’s arguments, citing some of the same examples of de las Casas. His arguments, to the best of my recollection, resemble some of the Noble Savage remarks of Rousseau and anthropologists of the time, although de las Casas casts the Noble Savage in a different light; he uses examples of some of the Native Americans’ more extraordinary advances, in both civilization and social/political “theory,” and all in all settles on the idea that they are both capable and worthy of the Word of God. Like Columbus in some ways, de las Casas holds out hope for bringing Jesus to the rest of the world. As for Hobbes, he puts the Native Americans closer to the state of nature, but (I think) out of a state of war, and either way (and this is crucial) he passes no judgment on it, neither good nor bad, yet he does highly advocate bringing them to civilization, preferably under a single sovereign. Finally, Rousseau seems to respect and maybe even envy the Native American, unfortunately more as the Noble Savage than as a human being. At the very least, he stands strongly against the idea of natural slavery; nevertheless, he saw civilization as an inevitability in the world he lived in, but I am unsure as to whether or not he felt the needed it.
Joshua Szymanowski
In class we discussed Columbus’ accounts, and his portrayal of Native Americans as a dichotomy between the Noble Savage, and the Savage Savage. This represents a single general Western impression of two different types of Native Americans. From the readings, and from other classes that I have taken so far, I see a more important dichotomy that is presented in the texts. Todorov summarizes it well “Either he conceives the Indians (though without using these words) as human beings altogether, having the same rights as himself but then sees them not only equals but also as identical, and this behavior leads to assimilationism, the projection of his own values on the other. Or else he starts from the difference, but the latter is immediately translated in terms of superiority and inferiority… “. The readings also show that these two different impressions, that of Native Americans as equals and brothers, and that of Native Americans as inferior and primitive, have played significant roles in the long term relations between the Euro/Western and Native American worlds. The first impression would be key to the development of Native Americans as a National Icon for secessionist colonists, and their subsequent treatment by the U.S. government for two centuries. The second impression challenged the European understanding of how the world worked, was essential to the development of Anthropology, and led to the idea that societies naturally progress towards civilization.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, there was the view that Native Americans are essentially equal to the Western Europeans/White Americans. First, it allows Native Americans to develop into a kind of national Icon for the colonial secessionists, by making it possible for the colonists to identify themselves with their vague notion of Native Americans. Thomas argues that the colonists adopt this Native American symbolism to differentiate themselves from Europeans, and to create a separate identity. Benjamin Franklin provides an excellent example of this with his iconic fur hat, which he wears as an ambassador to France to establish his American identity, while trying to garner support for the revolution. At the same time however, this glorification of Native American symbolism seems to fade when actually confronting Native Americans. According to both Thomas and Todorov, the desire to resolve the problems that arise from the culture clash along with the idea of equality, leads to an assimilationist attitude towards Native Americans. Both Columbus and Jefferson are portrayed as wanting to convert Native Americans, culturally and/or religiously. Obviously most Native Americans weren’t keen on being converted which resulted, in both the case of Columbus and Jefferson(and other Presidents), in a more hostile and aggressive policy towards the Native Americans (which has clearly lasted for centuries).
From antiquity, many philosophers believed that the state was natural. The predominant western view before the “discovery” of the New World was that civilization was a natural part of society: that there didn’t exist a time when humans didn’t organize themselves socio-politically into something they could recognize as a state. When news of the New World reached Europe, it clearly shook apart their existing understanding of the way the world works (religiously, historically etc…). One facet of this revelation was the idea that the state couldn’t be natural, because here was an entire continent of people without a recognizable form of government. European philosophers had to explain this somehow, and this whole issue gave birth to Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and countless other giants who debated the nature of humanity and it’s relation to the state. They all pretty much adopted the same explanation to the discrepancy, the easiest explanation, which went along the lines of “Here’s us with a society and civilization. There’s them without a society or civilization. How do we explain that? We must have come from them” Their game of socio-political connect the dots gave birth to the model of cultural progress, whereby societies progress in complexity from “savages” as Morgan puts it, to “civilization”. This serves as a base model for Anthropology from its philosophical roots in the 16th century, to its scientific development in the 19th century, all the way to the present. I think that from this model, Western Europeans and Americans inferred that Native Americans represent an earlier stage in social development, and provided a basis for archeology and ethnography to try to understand the present Native Americans, in order to understand the Western European past. It turned Native American history into a scientific endeavor, which fueled the distant, cold and observer like status of Archeologists and Anthropologists (save for Morgan and several others to an extent) towards Native American culture. The two impressions aren’t mutually exclusive though, seeing as the dominant scientific view that developed in the succeeding centuries was that Native Americans were equal biologically, but inferior culturally and technologically. They also interplayed with each other, and I think that Morgan held both of these partially conflicting views, which lead to some of the apparent discrepancies in Morgan’s character.
Samrat Bhattacharyya
The European discourse on their primary encounters with Native Americans painted the latter as evolutionarily young people void of most, if not all, traits of civilization waiting to be converted to Christianity. This discourse helped set the stage for the udder exploitation of the so-call “New World” by Europeans under the pretext of spreading Christianity and civilizing Native Americans.
ReplyDeleteThe authorities as seen in the New Atlantis describe the “inhabitants of America as a young people.” Implicit in this description of Native Americans is the idea that the “young” of America are cut from the same cloth as the “old” of Europe. Likewise, Morgan explicitly discuss the “oneness in origin” from which all peoples develop mentally in stages from savagery to barbarism and finally to civilization. The Native Americans, according to Morgan, hadn’t made it past barbarism. By describing the Native Americans as a young people with similar origins to Europeans, European intervention was not seen as a utterly unjust occupation as much as it was ignorantly seen as a brotherly mission to usher the Native Americans from a state of barbarism to a state of civilization.
Yet lost in this civilizing mission are the Native American’s rich cultural and political institutions and oral histories the first European invaders where not equipped to recognize or understand. Todorov notes the near willful ignorance of Columbus who defines Native American’s by what they lack in his eyes which are European forms of government, private property, and religion; he also notes their lack of clothing and his naming of various islands makes evident his unwillingness to achieve a sufficient understanding of the “New World” as he stumbled upon it. Columbus thus creates a fictional void which the colonizers will appoint themselves to fill.
Though the Christian pre-text for invading the Americas are evident in Columbus’ “Letter to the Sovereigns” and Bacon’s New Atlantis (in which the heroes praises the work of earlier invaders by exclaiming “God surely is manifested in this Land”), the economic motives are evident in these text. The heroes in New Atlantis seem to see God more and more as they see more and more of the wealth of this land. Columbus discusses at length the economic potential of the land and later, as Todorov points out, the people. But by creating a sense of oneness with Native Americans as potential Christian brothers, the early discourse on the Americas allowed invaders to use Christianity as the currency of colonialism. As Todorov notes, “the Spaniards give religion and take gold.”
While discussing text such as Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau in other classes we were strictly given a European context when given any larger context at all for the political and social environment in which these texts were produced. Though this course has been painfully Eurocentric thus far (I know the best is to come) it is refreshing to get a greater perspective on the repercussions the ideas of these authors had for people outside of Europe. We did discuss Native Americans briefly while reading Montaigne, a French skeptic who emphasized the lack of any universal moral code which could be used to label Native Americans as inferior.
D. Omavi Harshaw
In many ways, the so-called discovery of the New World, at least as it pertains to the kingdoms of the Old World, was akin to a group of young adults coming face-to-face with reality and being forced to discard their naivete and childish ways for cunning and sophistication. By successfully getting lost while venturing a little too far past earshot, the "discovery" liberated the confined and angst-driven pubescent civilizations of the Old World - who, let us not forget, spent thousands of years bickering and fighting with each other in their own trampled backyard - and gave them all a place to play.
ReplyDeleteYet, with that said, the price was happily paid. And, why not? Who wouldn't want to claim an unknown land - if not, in the least, to piss off the other guy?
However, not only did Europe's children wreck destruction and havoc in their campaigns of expansion and holy registration but, in doing so, their own cultures would forever be mutated. Within a generation or two, the entirety of Europe's traditions would be turned inside out, whether that be religion, commerce, politics, warfare, identity, confidence....
The truth is: The Old World wasn't getting any bigger, in fact, one could say people (generations of them) were plain bored of doing the same thing - there are only so many ways to kill and be killed. "Finding" this new land, was not only a blessing but was long overdue. Like a teenager, Europe needed a new identity and America gave it to her.
There is a joke that some Indians say: "Discovered? What the hell you talking about? We were just talking and were all wondering what took you guys so long? We got sick of that place thousands of years ago - how else you think we got here? We've been here so long, in fact, that we have our own creation stories. We'll tell you all about them after we get you some food - you look starved."
Rico J. Garcia
The European assumption of superiority over the Native Americans displayed their consequential thirst for domination and colonization. Upon encountering the Europeans for the first time, the Indians shower them with gifts and warm welcome. The Europeans then describe the Indians as gentle, feminine, and cowardly. Later encounters with the Indians mutate the European opinion to accusations of savagery, barbarism and unsalvageable wretchedness. Both of these classifications of the Indians reflect the European belief of their authority over this alien culture. In the first description, they assume an innocent naivete, a pure people to be saved, on the Indians’ behalf, thus demonstrating the arrogance of the European missionary sentiment. The latter description puts forth a less complicated and more visceral reaction; that of completely othering the Indian nations. The Europeans painted some of the Indians as unreachable cannibals, creatures that were not human but creatures which manifested all that was anti-Christian and influenced by savagery. This opinion displays the utter incapacity of the Europeans to try to understand and openly accept a foreign group of people as different, but related as humans.
ReplyDeleteThis sentiment was to leave its trace on the events of history throughout the rest of the modern era, and even, some might argue, still influence the events of today. European thinkers legitimized the opinions chronicled earlier as natural consequences of societal evolution. Societal evolution, they argued, could be thought of in steps which reflected human evolution in tandem. First would be the age of savagery, in which humans act without regard to any strain of discipline, but rather entirely instinctually. Next was the age of barbarism, in which the people formed loosely organized groups and could cooperate and communicate with each other. And finally was the stage of civilization, in which humans developed a method of writing and governed themselves formally. In this tripartite societal evolution, they stood at the top, while the Indians were either barbarians or savages, but definitely on the bottom end. This was enough permission for the Europeans to either a) help to save the Indians, by introducing Christianity and European organization or b) enslave the Indians, because the people were unsalvageable. They did both.
The encounter with the New World was the ultimate example situation of colonization whose precedence was followed throughout the subsequent eras. Europeans, after finding no other civilization was as technologically or philosophically advanced by their standards, systematically travelled throughout the world and found ways to dominate foreign cultures. This began, though, with the Indians of the New World.
- Ashley Ellenson
ReplyDeleteChelsea Fairbank
ReplyDeletePre-Columbian History
of Native Americans
Blog entry #1
The lectures and readings in class have repeatedly illuminated a historical narrative which blends fact with fiction highly reliant on a teleological trajectory of time. Teleology places (unilineal) progress in a falsely exalted position. Our course has unpacked numerous examples which designed a popular image of Paleo-Indians who lived in North America prior to colonization. (Even in this blog I initially used “inhabited” in the place of “lived” in the last sentence, only to stop myself with the realization that the tendency towards certain terminology infers a species orientation to the Native American in place of a more humanistic one; such as the arrows demonstrating migration patterns removing a sense of humanity from its representation).
Through teleological and binary world views the Europeans colonizing North America contextualized the Native Americans into paradigms they already knew. This approach combined well with what Professor Fowles called a “finalist strategy of interpretation”; already knowing and anticipating what you will find in the ‘new world’. Binary, as in the “good” Indian and the “bad” Indian. Social evolutionary theory and thinkers of the time posited reality on a positive trajectory moving from savagery, barbarism, to civilization. The natural sciences harnessed a similar pattern of thought by designing history as progression moving from stone, to bronze, and finally iron; implicitly implying iron to be synonymous with a civilized era. Both schools of thought produced singular world visions, reconfirming a westernly civilized positive trajectory for all people that successfully justified the colonization and subsequent decimation of Native American peoples in North America.
Morgan’s approach was interesting because he, as well, relied on a teleological frame but attempted an inverse operation of sorts. Morgan tried to place credit and empowerment back into the hands of the Native American by using a progressive timeline to argue that civilized society should be grateful to barbarous Natives because they contributed to the advancement of civilized society.
Contemporarily, terminology continues to taint popular imagination’s image of Native Americans. ‘Ancient’ actually removes the North American from a time trajectory moving toward the present, implicitly discrediting them as not possessing ingenuity, while fixing their position on a progressive timeline. ‘Discovery’ places all agency into European colonizers hands and posits the Native American as a peoples waiting in want for an external influential catapult into a more technologically based civilized society. What I find really fascinating is that contemporary Native Americans have avoided a complete assimilation of such imagery into their own perception and consciousness of themselves. Things like the Universal Declaration of Indigenous Peoples, drafted in 2007, demonstrate a proactive global movement of indigenous peoples concerned with their autonomy.
One comment I do have about the class lecture is how Professor Fowles suggested there never was a period of isolation between the regions of Siberia and Alaska because, “…it is just 100 kilometers across.” I think that is quite possible that there was not total isolation between the migrating groups but I immediately was weary of hyper-conflating the simplicity of the operation. The Bering Sea is the roughest ocean water in the world, crossing it no simple task. So many times when we unpack ideas in popular imagination we use the complexity of circumstances overlooked previously to prove our points. So yes, there are other narratives to explore in the migration of the Americas before Columbus, but avoiding the oversimplification of the counter narrative is important as well.
My reading of Vine Deloria Jr.’s chapter “Anthropologists and Other Friends” from the work Custer Died for Your Sins, and class discussions prompted me to think further about how Native Americans perceive themselves, and how that perception has been, in large part, shaped by European anthropologists’ characterizations of their culture.
ReplyDeleteI’ve been thinking through Deloria’s perspective on the anthropologists he writes about who led workshops with Native American tribes. From the author’s perspective, these anthropologists are harming the Indians because they offer them the opportunity to buy into stereotypical theories about their culture. Thus, the value of these workshops must be questioned.
One of the workshops offered, as described on page 86, discussed how Indians were “between two worlds” (that of the urban people and the folk people), and subsequently coped by drinking. Indians drank, says Deloria, because they were told by the authoritative anthros that that is what “real Indians” did. At first, I was unsure where to direct my frustration with this statement. After consideration, I realize that the author feels saddened at how much influence the anthropologists had over young Native Americans, and the damaging nature of their teachings. It certainly is irresponsible for Ph.D.s to simplify a complex disease such as alcoholism, and so it is with them that my frustration lies.
I’ve also been considering the question of who truly gets to define the identity of a particular group. Does a group take on the identity reflected back onto them by the outsider, diminishing its unique qualities and overlooking its true identity? Deloria asserts that during summer workshops, young Indians were influenced by an outsider’s stereotypes and perpetuated them within their tribe. Deloria states that “Tribal identity is assumed, not defined, by the reservation people” (84). How unfortunate it is to think that outsiders with their own motives might overlook the character of a group of people with rich oral histories and religious traditions.
Deloria makes an interesting assertion, advocating that anthropologists seeking to study a particular tribe should “contribute to the tribal budget” and “thus become productive members of Indian society” (95). A contribution to the tribal budget is both literal and symbolic of how anthropologists should not take advantage of the tribes they seek to study. In addition, by becoming a member of Indian society, they can observe the culture from within and not outside of it, and make keen observations in an attempt to convey the truth, to see things from the native perspective, and illuminate how, in this case, contemporary Native Americans see themselves in their own world.
Our discussion about Columbus and his contradicting (and made up) viewpoints of the Arawaks and Caribs help to highlight the paradoxical ways in which the Europeans saw themselves as heroes for both the Native Americans and the Europeans. Lewis Henry Morgan outlines the rise of the human race, ‘mankind commenced their career at the bottom of the scale and worked their way up from savagery to civilization through the slow accumulation of experimental knowledge.’ (pp.3) They saw themselves as heroes for the Native Americans because they were saving them from their savagery and advancing their humanity. They used evidence such as the fact that the natives were naked and shared everything as a means to justify their beliefs that these peoples were not civilized and therefore needed to reach the next level of humanity. Through this the Europeans glorified themselves and their mission to ‘help’ the native americans.
ReplyDeleteThe flip side of this has to do with the portrayal of the Caribs by Columbus. The colonists were also making themselves into heroes for the Europeans by striking down the ‘bad’ natives that the saw as entirely savage. Those who ventured to the New World took these ‘bad’ natives who Columbus said ‘those people which all those of the other islands of the Indies, and they are so feared that they have no equal’ (Zamora pp.8) They are going to save the Europeans from these savage peoples and bring them to help them. They contradict themselves by saying that these Indians cannot be reformed and so they enslave them instead, making them into a lower class of citizen.
Hannah Galey
"…as a rule, Indians were theologically prepared for the existence of Europeans" …while "contact with the Indians caused Europeans considerably more consternation" (Mann, 142-143). I am immediately alarmed by this statement; what does it mean that as a rule, Indians were more prepared for the arrival of foreigners than Europeans were of learning about the existence of a different group of people? While Mann outlines the Europeans’ Biblical confusion over the origins of Indians, and also explains the Indians’ theological flexibility regarding the existence of other people, he earlier describes this discrepancy using different language: "..the initial Indian-European encounter was less of an intellectual shock to Indians than to Europeans. Indians were surprised when strange-looking people appeared on their shores, but unlike Europeans they were not surprised that such strange people existed." (Mann., pg. 141). The “intellectual” and the “theological” are used interchangeably, and I think that this combination ultimately reflects a derogatory European attitude towards the Indians’ world view. While the first statement puts the Indians’ encompassing theology in a seemingly positive light, the second one seems to imply that they did not have intellectual depth. This seems to say that, yes, the Europeans’ view, which did not accommodate for the existence of this group of people was inaccurate, but at least it was a well developed idea. The Indians’ content in thinking that the "Christians came from the sky and were seeking gold" (Todorov 42), is not viewed as pragmatically useful, but instead underdeveloped and naive.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile Acosta is making an equally unfounded statement in saying that the Indians came either by land, or by sea willfully or accidentally, because "no other possible ways occurs to me if we are to speak of the course of human affairs and not set ourselves to imagining poetic tales" (Acosta, pg 52). He seems to be trying to convince himself that the Indians are indeed human; by justifying their arrival in this way, he does admit that he, too, considered the possibility that they were superhuman. Unfortunately we do not have access to this sort of deliberation that might have occurred amongst the Indians. Their lack of confusion, and lack of consternation presents them as simple-minded, The Bible and the intellectual are compatible while the nature-based theology of the Indians is a “poetic tale” that leaves no room for intellectual debate. This sets the foundation for the Bible being an intellectual text in a way that other religious texts are not, that can have political ramifications. From the start, the Bible has a different justification than other religious foundations, and even today it still stands outside the boundaries of the separation of church and state.
~Aida Sadr
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI’m struck by the case of Lewis Henry Morgan. On the one hand, I find his project well-intentioned and reasonable. It’s clear that he had a deep respect for the Native American culture, as evidenced by his participation in “The Grand Order of the Iroquois.” On the other hand, his fascination is almost too childlike to be taken seriously. I’m reminded of American kids in the 1950’s who, inspired by the rugged individualism of pulp Westerns, spent long afternoons playing “cowboys and Indians.” Sure, it’s a harmless indulgence in the romanticism of a foreign identity, but at some point we need to realize how the proliferation of these mentalities affects those represented. Identity isn’t a game, or something to be appropriated by privileged intellectuals bored with their own social location. It’s how we relate to each other, how we position ourselves in society, how we come to learn and respect difference. To essentialize the identity of a group of people is to unfairly reduce their political and cultural accomplishments. This is especially problematic if the essentializing is done by influential thinkers like Morgan who have the power to incline others towards cultural sensitivity.
ReplyDeleteI also take issue with Morgan’s “developmental ladder.” The evolutionary view of culture is problematic for a whole host of reasons. First, it rings eerily of Hegel’s teleological view of History which conveniently excluded non-industrial societies. Second, it promotes a hierarchical view of human development which is both racist and ignorant of the motivations of non-European, so-called “primitive” societies. One should never presume that the logical endpoint of cultural development is “civilization.” The fact is, many non-industrial societies are no less developed than our own. They have simply constructed a different mode of being. The terms “savagery” and “barbarism” imply a kind of innate developmental inferiority, when in fact these people lack the desire for productive excess and materialistic overindulgence that characterizes “modern civilization.” The last and most important danger of this attitude is that it can be used to justify projects of forced assimilation. These evolutionary hierarchies were the justification behind the European colonial project, where cultural rape was performed under the guise of “civilizing” the uncivilized.
Jacob Brunner
Being an impassioned verbiphile, I was fascinated by Todorov’s discussion of “human signs” – i.e., the words of a language – in The Conquest of America. Todorov distinguishes these “signs” from the signs of nature, which are “stable associations between two entities.” Words, however, are “not simple associations – they do not directly link a sound to a thing, but pass through the intermediary of meaning, which is an intersubjective reality” (Todorov 25). Yet there is a certain category of words that is more akin to “natural signs” than “human signs”: proper names. Unlike other words, they are “direct associations between aural sequences of sounds and segments of the world”; they are inherently “devoid of meaning,” and “serve only for denotation, but not directly for human communication” (28).
ReplyDeleteIt is fitting, then, that Columbus is only preoccupied with this particular sector of the human vocabulary. As Todorov asserts, “he always perceives names as identical with things” (29). This has profound implications, both for his image of himself and his conception of the Native Americans. The very act of giving something a name implies ownership. Thus, Columbus not only renames the Native Americans and their islands, but also reduces their vocabulary to one that consists only of proper names in order to “possess” every aspect of their culture and tradition. He treats the Native Americans not as humans, but as objects found in nature (hence the close correlation between proper names and “natural signs”). In fact, the very “first gesture Columbus makes upon contact with the newly discovered lands … is an act of extended nomination” – he gives the land a name and simultaneously demands a “deed of possession” (28). His conviction that each and every Native American word is a proper name not only reduces their vocabulary, but precludes him from communicating with them in any way. These communication barriers in turn engender (or, perhaps, are simultaneously caused by) social barriers and hierarchies. Columbus actually “uses” his incomprehension of the Native American languages to shape his portrayal of them – i.e., he hears only what he wants to hear; he “engages in some absurd and imaginary dialogues,” and refuses to even attempt to understand what is actually being said (30). This is precisely how he is able to take possession of them; in a sense, by misinterpreting their words, he reinvents their culture.
Words (i.e., names) are not only “in the image of [our] being,” but also literally define who we are; they are our identity (26). Our perceptions of others are strongly influenced (or even shaped) by the words we use to describe them; words are what create and manifest stereotypes, prejudices, and biases. This is why Columbus is so preoccupied with changing the orthography of his name in order to reflect his qualities more accurately. He views himself as both an evangelizer and a colonizer; hence, he calls himself Cristobal (bearer of the Christ) and Colón (repopulator). The mere verbal association of these names with Columbus evokes a certain physical association of these images with Columbus.
All of this relates to a point that Sev brought up in lecture – the change of the phrase “Discovery of the New World” to “Peopling of the New World” in a textbook about Native Americans. Whereas “discovery” implies the arrival of Europeans at a land previously unowned (and thus further implies that they are able to claim it for themselves), “peopling” implies only the physical movement of Europeans into the land. The switch of just one single word has tremendous repercussions!
Since many of the readings and lectures of this section focused on the notion of “narrative”, I found myself thinking about my own history a lot. Throughout all of the readings, two particular things struck me most. The first is located in the foreword of Skull Wars. Vine Deloria mentions the “power to name, define, and conquer” as being integral to the “skull wars”. The effects of the employment of these powers are ones with which I identify. As a Choctaw, it is easy and predictable to align myself with many of Vine Deloria’s views and statements. He “tells it like it is”, often in a bittersweet way of delineating the absurd and ridiculous steps (sometimes humorous in retrospect) that have led to the current realities of indigenous peoples. Such a contemporary perspective is essential to the bigger story.
ReplyDeletePerhaps conflictingly, I also very much appreciated the presence of Bacon’s “New Atlantis” in the required reading. Although Deloria’s writing is technically not written in a traditional style traditionally considered to be narrative, he is still able to tell a story. I found the exact opposite kind of story in Bacon’s piece. “New Atlantis” left an impression of enchantment, hope, and adventure. Upon realization of this, I was taken back and uncomfortable. How was I able to identify with both the colonized and colonizer? My immediate reaction was to somehow reject “New Atlantis” and prove to myself that I did not enjoy it, but I simply cannot. This is troubling and challenging, but something I hope to further explore.
-Destiny Sullens-
All throughout primary school, year after year, I was repeatedly taught the same story about Columbus. I was told he had gone looking for India and had accidentally found America. History books told me that he’d become friends with the Native Americans and that they had mutually helped each other out. Then teachers briefly mentioned that the relationship had gone awry. But the details stayed very minimal.
ReplyDeleteWhat I remember the most is celebrating Columbus Day and Thanksgiving at school. We would have to color in pictures of turkeys, corn, half naked “Indians”, and a fully dressed Columbus wearing a big hat and boots. He looked so tall and sophisticated facing the black and white drawing of a man with lines of paint on his cheeks. It never struck me until recently how ludicrous and yet prevalent this stereotypical image of the encounter was. Yet, this ludicrous image is rooted in hundreds of years of literature and European guilt. I was taught that the Americas began the day Columbus set foot on our shores and proceeded to educate these “poor Indian people” (Jose De Acosta, Natural and Moral History of the Indies). I was taught that our history began at that precise moment. What happened before somehow does not seem to matter in our history books.
It is as though the history of America was split into two phases: the savage phase and the civilized one where Columbus saved that so-called Native American from himself. In primary school however, kids are only taught about this second phase as though the first and original one does not apply to them or to our present state.
Not only do we basically ignore pre-Columbus times, but moreover our present image of the Native American has hardly evolved since the 15th century. Not only does the theme of nakedness reappear over and over again but so does this idea of the savage man being saved by his superior Europeans: “We opened their eyes with our faith, which teaches us that all men come from one man” (Jose De Acosta, Natural and Moral History of the Indies). Even in modern day literature and movies (Disney’s Pocahontas or Lynne Reid’s The Indian in the Cupboard) Native Americans – and women as well – are represented as very much in touch with the most basic of all phases, nature: “this view of the first settlers is too simplistic, relying as it does on a stereotype that ‘people worked their way through the continent gnawing on mammoth bones’” (Scientific America: Who Were the First Americans?). They are even at times seen to be below nature: “Nature gave them all this as a free gift, wishing to favor the poor Indian people” (Jose De Acosta, Natural and Moral History of the Indies)! At first glance there is nothing wrong with this association with nature but when looked at more closely, this image is implying that Native Americans – and women – are less evolved than their male white counterparts. They are closer to nature, or even below nature thus farther away from sophistication.
This image of the Native American as a more primitive and less developed reflection of the white European was born with semi-good intentions. After the America’s and its people were discovered, many Europeans suggested that these people were simply not human – people referred to them as one-eyed monsters or even dog-humans. But others believed that they were simply a less evolved form of the “modern European.” People like Captain Morgan claimed that Europeans should be thankful to these barbaric peoples as they were the door that led us to civilization. Thus came the image of the Native American as a “naked” European or as a “savage hunter[…] rather than a civilized folk” (Jose De Acosta, Natural and Moral History of the Indies). With each step they took towards civilization, it was as if a small layer of clothing was being put on their bodies.
In fact, keeping this close relationship between Native Americans and nature was very useful for the settling Europeans. Certain discoveries, like that of the compass, had led the civilized European to believe God had given him the gift to control or foresee some aspects of nature: “Surely it is not the least of God’s wonders that the power of such a little stone has command over the sea and makes the immense abyss obey it and follow its orders” (Jose De Acosta, Natural and Moral History of the Indies). Not only were these people very close to nature, but they were also wild and needed to be tamed: “and I do not know how these people can be called peaceful, since the truth is that they have been perpetually at war among themselves” (Jose De Acosta, Natural and Moral History of the Indies). This comment reminds us of Jean Jacques Rousseau’s image of the noble savage as he discovers property and consequently enters a state of constant war. It was therefore the civilized European’s job to help these poor people get away from themselves. God had shown the European this “fallen man” and it was now his moral obligation to lead this “very stupid and blunt of intellect” native in the right way. Native Americans were just another part of this natural world that the civilized man and should “rightfully” control.
For hundreds of years, we’ve continuously “dressed” the Native American whose “clothing […] is the simplest and most natural in the world, with almost no artifice and this fashion of clothing was common in ancient times” (Jose De Acosta, Natural and Moral History of the Indies). We’ve taken away his natural land and covered its own nakedness with skyscrapers and roads. We’ve covered up his “childish” beliefs with our own religions. We’ve clothed his history, hidden the genocide he was a victim of with happy celebrations of turkey and corn. And we’ve put those Native Americans that have refused to wear our European/civilized ways in actual Indian reserves, hiding their “nakedness” from us refined folk. We’ve dressed this Native American and it seems as though we will continue to “dress” him until he is completely covered. We will continue until his "barbarism, savagery, and closeness to nature" has finally vanished from our developed societies under imposed layers of so-called progress.
-Pauline Brown-
During our class discussion of Lewis Henry Morgan’s ladder of social evolution, I realized that I have some problems with his model. One section of Skull Wars summarizes his model, highlighting its components that bothered me in particular. “In Ancient Society, Morgan traced the history of the human family, government, private property, and technology through three sequential stages – as the title suggests, from savagery to barbarism to civilization” (47). The first issue that presented itself to me was the fact that Morgan was not an historian. He was a lawyer and then an anthropologist. Perhaps one could find validity in his origin story, but it leaves out large portions of historical development. This is clear as he divides the three stages into sub-stages. For example, he characterizes lower savagery with fire and middle savagery with the bow and arrow. Both fire and the bow and arrow were monumental developments, but how can he assert that these technologies were the technologies that set apart two out of nine stages of the entire human existence? Furthermore, he presents no dates. He cannot even prove that fire was in fact created before the bow and arrow. It seems he is making some educated guesses, while recording his speculations as archaeological realities.
ReplyDeleteAnother issue I have with Morgan’s model is that it deals only with the material culture of humans. More than what they create must define behaviorally modern humans. We are set apart from animals in that we have the power to think and reason. As such, it would make more sense for Morgan to present a ladder in which our cognitive abilities increase with the ladder’s height, or at least include these advances along with the material advances. He presents his model in a manner that makes human advancement seem like a series of serendipitous events; each advancement conveniently sets the stage for the next one. I cannot help but wonder how he chose each of his representative technologies. It seems as though he chose his selected technologies out of a hat. One could argue that cognitive abilities are represented in his model, in that more brainpower is needed to craft each of these technologies. Yet the same behaviorally modern humans that began writing also created fire – time simply passed in between, permitting humans to explore more and more. Furthermore, he believes that the highest level of human development is civilization, characterized by writing. I believe he is making the same mistake that Columbus made, in that he does not understand, therefore he thinks it does not exist. Native Americans had more than pottery, bows and arrows, and fire. They had a rich and wonderful culture that Morgan tried to uncover. Yet if he spent so much time trying to learn about the Native American past, how did he not think to find a Native American equivalent to European writing? For surely one existed.
Hadas Margulies
At the time of the European discovery of America, Europeans had no conception of an Other. Their egocentric geographical perception of the world consisted of an island with Jerusalem at the center; the seas created the boundary between the known and the unknown. The Christian religion was the only valid religion, the land was governed in states, society held particular hierarchies, people were educated through the disciplines of mathematics, philosophy, literature, and so on. The unexpected encounter with Native Americans led to the hugest paradigm shift in recent history; Europeans had to learn to account for the Other, and in doing so they had to change their perception of themselves. Their history had to change—the Bible was the most authoritative historical text in Europe and did not take hold the world of America within it. The European conception of society should have changed: the native Americans had their particular forms of governments and hierarchies and roles too and yet the Europeans, blinded by their belief that their way of society was the only way, could not possibly recognize that the Natives in fact were a form of organized society. Many ideas evolved about the possibility that the native Americans were in fact primitive versions of Europeans, and that with the right guidance the native population could grow to be another European society. The main problem Europe had was that it could not separate itself from the Other; they had to place the natives into their own history and, they had to believe that they evolved from peoples like the natives. In essence they saw their own society as the most progressive and advanced and the most correct. Consequent to this (mistaken) belief, Europeans thought they had the right and duty to impose upon the natives. The most prevalent way in which this belief manifested itself was the number of natives who were converted to Christianity. Though the Native American tribes contained their own, often very strong spiritual beliefs before the infestation of Europeans on their continent, these strangers scared and threatened and confused the natives enough to convert them to Christianity. Thus the European countries could trumpet the invasion of the Americas as a religious crusade, when in reality the Europeans kept arriving in the New World to find wealth and to satisfy their curiosity about these novel savages they stumbled across.
ReplyDeleteMontaigne wrote about an innovative way to view the natives of America: as simply different. Rather then adapting the common European view that these people were downright barbarous due to their cannibalism and plainly wrong in the way they conducted their society, Montaigne reflected upon his own society in analyzing what he knew of the natives. He admitted that the natives could see European society as just as savage as the Europeans perceived the natives to be; the practices of both worlds consisted of good and bad, but they achieved the good and the bad by different means. De Las Casas shared Montaigne’s views that both the Old and New Worlds had similarities in that each consisted of certain evils (barbarism on the part of the natives and corruption of the part of Europeans) and certain goods (the natives were ‘pure’ and ready to receive the gospels to let Christianity into their souls and the Europeans were willing to give it to them). Some Europeans were of the opinion that since the Native Americans were essentially primitive Europeans, they did not yet have original sin. Ridiculous, as I’m sure the men who actually voyaged to America realized that the natives were not without sin. But rumors like this certainly swirled around the heads of the befuddled and uneducated Europeans at the time; these people had their world turned upside down by the discovery of the native Americans. The only way I can see European actions during this time period as justified is that their world as they knew it -- their culture and society and history and religion – flew under attack with an encounter with the rival peoples of the New World, and all immediate defenses rose up to endorse European society.
Locke based his philosophy mainly on the idea that he needed to justify his usurpation of land from the natives. He owned many slaves and a lot of land, and his philosophy about property reflects on this and on his own displacement of Native Americans from his land. He claimed that when one labors on land, the land can be claimed as one’s own. He does not take into account that fact that the natives labored on the land before he (the European) showed up. His philosophy is, in my opinion, very closed-minded in the sense that he does not place a limit on wealth accumulation and does not admit that in taking all of this land he could be taking from someone else.
Rousseau, I believe, was the most progressive of the contemporaneous thinkers we are considering. His writings mostly consisted of angry criticisms of European society, and though he did not blatantly sing the praises of the natives, he did glorify the state of nature (the world before organized society) in his writings. Because Europeans believed the natives to be closer to the state of nature than their own, ‘advanced’ civilization, I believe Rousseau subtly pointed to the idea that the natives lived in a better state than what European civilization was at the time.
-Elissa Cashman
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs we discussed in class on Tuesday, Louis Henry Morgan’s account of human progress and human history proceeds in a linear motion. More than that, it continues on with teleological intent; all of human history is forward-moving (i.e. history is not a line to move backwards and forwards on—we always move in one way because each advancement builds upon a previous one.) towards a particular destination, namely towards “civilization” as Morgan designates it. Although all humans have a common historical line and evolution, and although history does not backslide, Morgan does differentiate where different peoples fall upon the line. It is not as easily done as categorizing all Native Americans as in “savagery” or “barbarism”, but he fine-tunes these categories after stripping away the accomplishments of the previous category one by one.
ReplyDeleteConsidering this was written in the nineteenth century, it is hard to give a viable critique because modern thinking has changed so much. However, I do think it’s important to explore the idea of striving towards “civilization”. For Morgan, it is a foregone conclusion that progress and civilization are positive goals. Many historians, economists and political scientists continue to thnk that progress is necessary. However—especially in regards to the native people of North and South America—progress did not bring prosperity or peace, but rather the opposite. Millions died, were enslaved or removed from their land. Morgan did not present any kind of moralist argument in his book, but I think it’s important to qualify his statements. “Civilization” does not equate with peace and happiness, though Morgan seems to make that kind of implication.
Another interesting critique of Morgan arises when comparing his ideas with Marx, his contemporary. Both were concerned with notions of progress and history, and how history itself progresses. Morgan places individualism and individualistic notions and boundaries as evidence of civilization—i.e. the destination of history. On page six of Ancient Society, he writes, “Its (property’s) dominance as a passion over all other passions marks the commencement of civilization.” In terms of living situations, he describes communal living as that of a savage; only after individual households have been established has civilization begun. Thus society is established on the “basis of territory and property”(6). For Morgan, the more a society clearly delineates mine from yours, his from hers, the haves from the have-nots, the more civilized it becomes, the further in history it has progressed. Marx’s take is decidedly different, since his historical progression returns to community and non-delineation, like that of Morgan’s savagery and barbarism. So not only do I question whether progress and civilization are good, I also question was “progress” really means. Who is moving towards the good and who is just moving forward? Unfortunately for Morgan, the two questions are not the same.
--Cristina Najarro
One of the greatest disservices to American indigenous people is the utter ignorance of not just Americans, but the entire world to Native American issues and history. It is quite humbling to think that an entire people can be so misrepresented that they have nearly faded out of the public eye. Throughout post-Columbian history Native Americans have been so shrouded in different stereotypes (the good savage, the savage savage, the devout Indian, barbarians, etc.) and anthropological hypotheses that their true identity as a people has been lost. As Deloria says, “The massive volume of useless knowledge produced by anthropologists attempting to capture real Indians in a network of theories has contributed substantially to the invisibility of Indian people today.” Since European colonization of the “New World”, Native American history has been steeped in misconceptions and finalist conjectures. “Indian people begin to feel that they are merely shadows of a mythical super-Indian.”(Deloria, 1987) These misconceptions are so pervasive that some Native Americans have begun to believe them because they are “between two worlds. […] For the anthropologists, it was a valid explanation of drinking on the reservation. For the young Indians, it was an authoritative definition of their role as Indians.”(Deloria, 1987) I discussed this statement with a fellow student of mine who had lived on a Red Cloud reservation for three years. In her mother’s experience as a teacher on the reservation she had seen a great many adolescent Native Americans who drank simply because they were expected to. This is the kind of impact that these stereotypes have had on Native populations and “anthropologists have unintentionally removed many young Indians from the world in which problems are solved to the lands of makebelieve,” says Deloria.
ReplyDeleteSomething equally as disgraceful is the perpetuation of one of the greatest lies of history: that Columbus “discovered” America. It is atrocious that the American population has been so easily duped into gulping down the sugar-coated, frosting-glazed chocolate cake that is the Elementary textbook version of Columbus’ huge “discovery”. The entire country has been so beguiled into believing this myth that even fifty percent of the native population asserts that Columbus indeed discovered America. Not to mention the federal holiday devoted to the so-called “discoverer” of the Americas. Given that, many people probably don’t think of Columbus Day beyond a day off of work or school, I still must ask, where is the “Honor the Six Million, Six Hundred Twenty Five Thousand Native Americans Decimated As A Result Of Columbus’ ‘Discovery’ and Finalist Strategies Day”? Of course we remember Indians at the Thanksgiving Day elementary school play and at Indian Guides/Princesses meetings, but we have forgotten to remember the Native Americans as a group of people like any other with a past and a present.
Leah Sikora
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSo far, the course and the readings associated with it have been structured around ambiguously specific questions. Who are the Native Americans? What is their Identity? Where did they come from and when? What does it mean to be a Native American? What was a Native American from the perspective of the Europeans and Anglo-Americans living in North America during and after colonization? During lectures and while reading Morgan and some of the other earlier anthropologists I cannot deny that I was curious about the answer to these questions myself. However, recently reading "Anthropologists and other Friends" in conjunction with "Skull Wars" has changed my perspective on these questions quite a bit; in fact it encouraged me to pose my own questions. Why do we ask these questions at all? What, or whose, purpose does this knowledge serve?
ReplyDeleteIn our society it is understood that knowing more is knowing better. Knowledge is truth and it solves our problems. However, the questions that are being asked by anthropologists, are not simply being asked for the sake of knowledge but rather with an aim in mind. This has caused me to wonder if that in academic publications there is ever a genuine curiosity behind questions. However, to avoid a philosophical digression here, I think it serves my comment to engage some of the reading. In the chapter we read from Vine's book, at least in the late 1960's, the anthropological theories (such as "warriors without weapons" with respect to the oglala tribe in Missouri) appear more to be fashion statements then scientific ones. The goal of the anthropologist was to get published; to make a headline. It is clear, as Vine writes, that anthropologists, honestly all academics, live in a 'publish or perish' reality, but I don't know if that is necessarily the root of the problem I am having while absorbing these readings.
I am having some trouble articulating this, but I think that the issue with anthropology and these questions, even for the public, is that for many people, there is a goal behind them. That goal is to find a quick fix to relieve a overwhelming sense of guilt. Obviously if you ask many anthropologists and people today if they feel guilty about the predicament of the Native Americans, they would probably say no. They didn't take anyone's land or kill anyone. But, the excitement over whether or not the first Americans may have indeed come from Europe, as postulated by the supporters of Kennewick man, or from Australia as indicated by the dig at Monte Verde seems to show otherwise. That guilt is what led to the original characterizations of the Caribs; for 500 years white people have been trying to argue there way out of feeling guilty for the treatment of the Indians and having taken their land and resources. Try as people might to argue otherwise, the reality is the Native American's did not give the founding fathers permission to set forth a new nation on this land.
This is the issue I have with the questions being asked by many of the early and modern anthropologists; As with back in the 18th and 19th centuries, when the white man tried to civilize the Indians without asking, anthropologists are trying to Identify the Native Americans without asking. What purpose does it serve to know how this continent was peopled, the reality is that there was a people here before the Europeans. The goal today should be to help these people, because the reality is that there are higher levels of poverty, suicide, homicide, and depression on the reservations than anywhere else in the country. Instead people focus on helping them remain Indians instead of being people. If it turns out that there were Europeans here before 12000BCE that doesn't change the fact that in 1492 there were 7 million natives and in 1890 there was scarcely over 300 thousand. But politicians today would use that information to change policies against the Natives' favor in order to satisfy their greed as well as their guilt. In the end I guess I am asking, who does the knowledge being gathered really help?
Thomas Nicholson
The assigned readings from skull wars present many of the ideas presented in class just with different narration. Through reading this I was able to react more deeply to a many of the topics that have been presented to us in class. The biggest theme I have found through class lecture and reading skull wars, is that people will resist changing their opinions and once-held beliefs at all costs. There are countless examples of this and I am opposed to this mindset because it is extremely ignorant and ethnocentric to think in this way.
ReplyDeleteTo start, the first thing Columbus did upon reaching the New World was call the natives there "Indians" and assume he had landed in India. Despite realizing that he had not found a shortcut but in fact a new world, he kept the name in place. This is a small example, but it is just the beginning of the things to follow. Columbus made it clear to the Europeans that these people were "barbaric," inferior, and behind in the times. They were in terms of technology, but even as I type/assert that they were in terms of technology, it is me being ethnocentric and thinking that they were meant to somehow progress to the state of technology that I am now at. How is anybody supposed to know where natives were headed had they been undiscovered, or if they even WANTED to advance in the same way "civilization" has? Sure, medicine saves lives, transportation makes things easier, but maybe they didn't fear death as we do now, and maybe they were more interested in preserving the environment in which they lived. I could be completely wrong, they too are human and would love the easy conveniences we have. Natives living on reservations today are very poor, but when they can, they grab as much modern stuff as they can. Surely, the Natives encountered by europeans hunted and selfsustained themselves and even attempted to build up groups of housing. But- what I have been taught in my elementary Native American lessons when I was young is that they always "used every part of the animal." Maybe that isn't true and is only an example of how sacred Indian imagery circulated as they "vanished" and people were saddened by it. Either way, nobody can say that the American Indians were wrong or inferior simply because they did not live in the same manner as the Europeans.
Creating the Good Arawak/Bad Carib dichotomy was a simple way to make things black and white for those back in Europe. These fictional images also allowed them to justify being treated well by Arawaks and then turning around and killing Caribs because these people were "unconvertible." This allowed them to cover all their bases, they could use either persona if they were asked why they traded with or killed natives. Some natives were peaceful and openminded themselves, willing to trade learn and interact. If it couldn't be transformed into Europe/Christianity, it was wrong and had to be eliminated. Again, why is their lack of Christianity a lack of religion? A lack of european language a lack of language? etc. This was discussed in class but I have thought it through a bit further and really wonder how this happened. In their defense, the europeans were making amazing breakthroughs at the time and it probably was somewhat challenging to keep themselves from believing they were, in fact, the kings of the world.
Some of what I have read in skull wars has just reinforced to me that people more recently are still stubborn to let go of what they have come to believe. It is certainly understandable, lots of evidence is needed to change a mind, but I think this reflects perhaps why the european explorers didn't consider any ideas but their own. For example, Morgan's idea of the linear progression from savagery to barbary to civilization suggests one main idea. That is, that the end has been reached and man is in society as he should be. How do they know, that that is what necessarily should and will happen with a natural progression? How do they know that they aren't actually moving backwards because they are getting further and further from their human roots as natural people. The europeans may be horribly mutating and destroying themselves slowly- morally and environmentally. Now I am not suggesting cannibalism is the way to go, but how is it possible for Morgan to say that his way of life is somehow superior? It is probably because humans love to justify themselves and he would certainly like to believe he is at the top technologically. Suggesting that all other ways of life are inferior may be popular, but it is obstinate and narrow minded. Also in terms of the wrong-minded centrism, thinking that all things stem into or from your own civilization and are examples of "your" culture at a different point suggests no acceptance of difference. Bottom line is.. why can't they just be their own entity? Why must things be westernized to be understood?
Lastly, and the thing I read most recently that really just started my whole thinking that people don't accept changes in what they once concluded, was simply just seeing Hrdlicka and Dr Holmes completely disregard any chances for the arrowheads to be pleistocene after they have concluded that humans just didn't live then. They thought that it was impossible with their findings and shut the book. Little did they know though that things aren't necessarily what they decide. That part of skull wars was just what happened to spark my idea to write about stubborn, egocentric views, so I had to throw it in.
-Brendan Martin
In “The Conquest of America,” Todorov addresses the dichotomy in the manner in which the Europeans perceived the Native Americans or more specifically, how they dealt with the otherness. He presents two opposite ways that the Indians were viewed. The two approaches of denying and radicalizing alterity reflect back to works of Rousseau and Hobbes, respectively. Rousseau wrote of the noble savage whose passions were not restricted by societal norms and thus could be readily alleviated. He had no debts because there was not a sense of ownership. Rousseau admired this lifestyle and labeled in superior to that of the Europeans in many aspects, namely those regarding liberty. He, like Todorov described, denied the differences between European and Native American culture. He viewed the noble savage as merely lacking civilization, and therefore nude or infant. This view, however, is not detrimental in itself because as I mentioned before, Rousseau admired the noble savage for not having to face societal pressures and restrictions that arise from government and property.
ReplyDeleteThe problem arises when the European fails to recognize the obvious differences of the other and subsequently devalues them. In other words, there is nothing wrong with saying that the Natives are similar to the Europeans insofar as they lack strict laws and property rights, but it is absurd to deny their religion, economy and even history merely because it is not like that of Europe. Rousseau denied alterity to the extent that both groups of people are humans and share the same nature, but he also recognized and reflected upon their differences. Rousseau put forth a puzzling question that makes it difficult not to see the value in the noble savage lifestyle versus the civilized lifestyle: “How could the civilized be better of than man in the state of nature when the former is often driven to take his own life, while the latter lives without a care.” (paraphrased)
The second approach to dealing with the otherness is to radicalize their alterity. This method entails the exaggeration or falsification of their tendencies by describing them as so savage-like that they are beyond salvation and therefore inhuman. This view could stem from specious Hobbesian perspective of human nature. Hobbes wrote that without the help of a sovereign, humans are in a naturally war-like state, in which man is only concerned with his own survival. This could be misinterpreted to fit the purpose of exploiting and enslaving the Native Americans. One could argue, since they are in this wretched state, we are doing them a favor by enlightening them and thus guiding them out of the state of war. Some would go so far as to call this the “White Man’s Burden.”
Aside from incorrectly using Hobbes philosophy, the view of radicalizing alterity is dangerous because it views the otherness as wholly negative so as to suit the purpose of enslavement. By denying the alterity, the Indians and Europeans are placed on the same level without either group having superiority over the other. In short, the first method is a better way to view the Native Americans, but it can still degenerate into a false view that assumes superiority.
Paul Corcoran
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading Bacon’s New Atlantis last week. I found it very interesting that Bacon depicted a people living in the Americas who were so advanced in technology, possibly even beyond the Europeans. This perspective must have been a very novel one of the times, considering that most Europeans viewed the Native Americans as subordinate, if not savage. The notion that the Native Americans were more knowledgeable than the Europeans is obviously not true to reality in terms of technologies. However, Rousseau and many other philosophers may argue that in fact the Native Americans were in a more advanced moral state than that of the Europeans. Rousseau writes about the Native Americans being closer to the state of nature where man is a tranquil being with a simple lifestyle which is harmonious with nature. He classifies the Europeans as being more corrupt and describes how their societies enhance inequality among men. It is therefore on a moral ground that Rousseau, like Bacon envisions the Native Americans as a superior race. This perception is very rare.
ReplyDeleteMorgan’s Ancient Society provides a detailed structure of the development of civilization. He is very exact in explaining which tools or skills are included in each level of development. However, I do not know if it is really possible to fit societies into such a rigid structure. For example, he ranks the Polynesians in the middle status of savagery since they have not discovered pottery. However, the Polynesians used other shells and objects as plates and bowls. They did not really have access to clay so it is not surprising that they did not develop pottery. The lack of this natural resource should not be the reason why these people should be classified in the middle status of savagery. Levels of development are therefore highly dependent on the surrounding resources and landscape.
It was very interesting to me that Thomas wrote that “the world’s primitives were doomed” (51). By this he insinuates that because the Native American were less technologically advanced than the Americans, that they would not be able to survive. This relates in part to Darwin’s discussion of the survival of the fittest. I tend to perceive the Native Americans as being strong people who live their entire lives trying to ensure their own survival. The Native Americans were largely self-sufficient and less dependent on others for survival. It seems then that they would survive better than the Europeans. The Europeans were more specialized and so very dependent on one another for survival. Certainly the factory worker would not have any idea how to grow his own food. The Europeans also sought the use of medications to drive back illnesses. In this way many people could survive even if they were not naturally of strong constitutions. It seems then that the people who would naturally be stronger would be the Native Americans.
Katherine Carrington
So far the readings we have read all come out of a European tradition of scholarship. No matter whether the texts are several hundred years old, like that of José Acosta, or very contemporary, like the Scientific American article by Sasha Nemecek, the writers present outsider views of Native Americans. These articles make some attempts to use observations, supposedly based in reality, in order to draw conclusions about the people of the Americas. This scientific mode of discourse ties the articles together. Even the relatively old text by Acosta takes a scientific tone as he examines the technologies of exploration and their effects on human travel and discovery. The narratives have a cause-and-effect structure characteristic of Western scientific narratives, and the problems of bias in these narratives seems to be the overarching concern in class lectures. While scientific writing is supposed to be a ‘true’ narrative that uses real observations in order to validate facts, it seems that the very act of observation is latent with cultural bias, as we have seen in the various narratives of the ‘discovery of the new world’ by Europeans. Since our view of Native American societies have been shaped by these European narratives, from the time of Columbus onwards, it seems that there cannot be any impartial story coming from outside of Native America. Although we can acknowledge the skewed stories we have grown up on, there is no way to eradicate the effects these narratives have had on us, they will always influence us subconsciously. Why this is of concern to me is that even trying to talk about the literature surrounding Native America and the ‘discovery of the new world’ seems difficult because of all the loaded terms and problematic views. It seems that our modern society is obsessed with having ‘unbiased’ scientific literature from which we can learn the ‘truth,’ and also literature that is politically correct and devoid of cultural bias. While the idea of truthful, inclusive literature seems great to me, I feel that this is an unreachable ideal.
ReplyDeleteTodorov acknowledges the problems of biased observation with Columbus’s descriptions of the new world. Todorov says, “the interpretation of nature’s signs as practiced by Columbus is determined by the result that must be arrived at. His very exploit, the discovery of America, proceeds from the same behavior: he does not discover it he finds it where he ‘knew’ it would be (where he thought the eastern coast of Asia was to be found)” (Todorov 22). Todorov’s description of Columbus’s opinionated explanations for what he finds in America does not only apply to Columbus however. I think that just as Columbus imposed his own preconceived notions on what he actually saw and experienced (he decided that “there remains to be discovered, no, to be found in its rightful place, the fourth continent” (Todorov 23) ), every other person on earth, and from history, imposes their past experiences on their current thoughts about the world. All knowledge is formulated with the use of past experiences, and is transmitted by language. The way in which humans create ideas and knowledge is inherently biased. There is no way that outsiders can come upon a culture they have not yet experienced and understand this new society without equating what they find with knowledge familiar to themselves. Of course Columbus did this to an extreme extent, forever skewing the outsider’s view of Native America, but I think that there is no way for any of us to get around the use of our prior knowledge when exploring something new. So even modern theories about the peopling of North America show bias based on preconceived knowledge that might skew the way in which archaeological evidence is interpreted.
I do not know of a solution to the problem of perception, so perhaps the best thing is to acknowledge the problems and move on. By reading different views from different people throughout time (as we are doing right now for this class) perhaps we can gather a more unbiased picture of Native America because all the various viewpoints will give us a fuller picture, rather like a cubist painting. Just as Picasso or Braque would create their paintings by piecing together many different viewpoints of the subject together in one plane, by reading texts, ancient and modern, European and Native American, perhaps we can piece together all the different viewpoints at once and look at our subject in a new and enlightened way.
-Hannah Kligman
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the 19th century, Europeans possessed an unwavering sense of superiority over Native Americans. Lewis Henry Morgan exhibits this attitude in his writing. In Ancient Society, he states, “Considering the absence of all connection with the most advanced portion of the human family in the Eastern hemisphere, their [the Natives’] progress in unaided self-development from the savage state must be accounted remarkable” (40). It is as though it was so unlikely for the Natives to be successful that when they are—when they exhibit intelligence and innovation as an independent group—it is a minor miracle. Morgan seems to patronize Native Americans by marking Europe and Asia as shining examples of civilization.
ReplyDeleteMorgan also states that “they [the Natives] had fallen behind the Aryan family in the race of progress” (40). But is the achievement of progress really a race, a fast-moving struggle among competing factions? No. Progress can occur quickly or slowly, immediately or gradually. And while civilization is the point of maximum progress, it should be a relative term. Morgan wrongly limits the definition of “civilization” to describe the highest level of societal organization that Eastern hemisphere peoples had reached. Instead, “civilization” must be understood through the lens of each particular society, Old World and New World.
Morgan propagates a sentiment that continues to be expressed in the present day. For example, the 1996 finding of Kennewick Man led scientists to establish superiority over the Natives in demanding the right to study the skeleton. No matter whom one sides with—the anthropologists and archaeologists, or the Natives—this is certainly an example of non-Natives seeking to overpower Natives. One could argue that the Natives are also trying to overpower the scientists in this situation, but, unlike the scientists’ approach, the Native course of action is a defensive one.
David Hurst Thomas correctly states in the Prologue to Skull Wars that “the pivotal issue at Kennewick is not about religion or science. It is about politics.”
-Sarah Sommer
I must disagree with Todorov's assertion that the assimilationism attempted by Columbus and other European travelers was rooted in their fundamental conceptions of Native Americans "not only as equals, but also as identical" (42). Of course, Todorov and I appear to be working off two different definitions of assimilationism. Todorov defines assimilationism as "the projection of [one's] own values on the others" (42). I do not disagree with this aspect of his definition in particular, but rather, I feel that his definition is incomplete. What should follow, in my opinion, is that after the initial projection, the party on the receiving end of the projection is expected to absorb such values unconditionally. These expectations do not indicate a relationship built on perceptions of equality---if one group of people actively seeks to forcibly instill their values on another group without consideration of local norms, can it really be said that they do not see their own values as superior? As far as I'm concerned, assimilation is, generally speaking, a one-way street, and the practice inevitably results in the dominance of one group (and by extension, their set of values) and the subjugation of another.
ReplyDeleteThe only progression I'm seeing in these accounts is not the one Todorov describes---from seeing the Native Americans as equals worthy of being "blessed" with European knowledge to irredeemable savages incapable of reason---but rather the transition from "peaceful" subjugation by means of assimilation to forcible subjugation through violence. It is important to note, as indicated in the Todorov reading, that the Native Americans, for a variety of reasons, were not entirely sure of Columbus's goals when he first arrived, so resistance was minimal. However, resistance among Native Americans grew (and understandably so) once they became cognizant of Columbus's aims. As Native American resistance grew, violence towards them by the Europeans grew with it, leading me to believe that forcible subjugation by the Europeans was the inevitable result of the encounter between the two groups. As mentioned in class, Columbus had a "finalist" interpretation of his journeys---everything he did was in the name of God, and he and his fellow Europeans were those ordained with the duty of spreading his word. Considering that pretext, it is no surprise that European colonists felt they had the right to forcibly subjugate those who didn't readily accept their "services" as resistance became widespread---they were merely fulfilling their divinely ordained tasks, after all, and those who tried to thwart their aims were simply delaying divine will.
On that note, I don't believe that the accounts of the encounters between Native Americans and Europeans really shaped the "project" of colonization---that project already had a pre-determined end the second Columbus expressed interest in introducing Native Americans to European culture. The project itself remained the same, but the methods became increasingly violent. One can even say that the European treatment of Native Americans was a primer of sorts to their treatment of Africans during the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, as they were much more aggressive with subjugation of Africans from the start (perhaps as a means of preventing resistance before it had an opportunity to flourish, I suppose). Of course, the economic motivations of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade were more overtly stated, but the justification for the enslavement of African peoples by and large remained the same. The exploitation of foreign lands and peoples, as far as I'm concerned, was the true aim (and was always the true aim) in both cases, with the religious pretext merely used as a buoy to rationalize perceived notions of superiority, but I digress...
---Nonye Madu
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn Vine Deloria, Jr.'s Custer Died for Your Sins, his chapter entitled "Anthropologists and Other Friends" tears apart the arrogant intellectualism of Native American anthropology from colonial days to the late 80s. His critique is similar to that of Edward Said's Orientalism from about a decade earlier, in that each author's subject involves a case where the political position of power and authority held by one group over another comes to be reflected in and grounded by the work of intellectuals and artists. All the studying of the Other brings about a sort of unavoidable objectification that reinforces the dominance of the Self. Hopefully the attitude of anthropologists has changed a little since the 80s.
ReplyDeleteDeloria brings up an anecdote about the Sioux being told by post-WWII anthropologists that they had forsaken the dancing tradition of their ancestors and lost their Indian-ness. The result of this imposition of authority was that a formerly healthy farming community turned into a never-ending pow-wow with sundry economic problems. I think Deloria is really hitting the nail on the head here. In class we discussed how Americans have incorporated into their national heritage/identity the particular Indians as perceived by early colonists. Whether savage and cunning rebels or deeply spiritual people who communed with nature, this appealing picture was somehow frozen in time. Now there seems to be a desire to be able to see such Indians today, as though the actual people had frozen along with our image. There's some sort of cognitive dissonance (for white Americans, anyway) with the idea of Indians modernizing or adopting Western culture, whether such things are for better or for worse. It would seem that anthropologists, who study the evolutions of cultures, would find it easier to appreciate their present state as well as those from which they descend.
Deloria's anti-intellectualism goes too far, however, in two cases.
In lamenting how anthropological slogans have "come to be excuses for Indian failures," he makes a contrast to the Black Power movement (83). Asserting that the Civil Rights movement was triggered by empowered young people, he bemoans the inability of Indian youth to do the same. I believe he overly romanticizes the Black Power movement in the same way that he criticizes whites for romanticizing the dancing Indian. The Civil Rights movement was conceived of and orchestrated by intellectuals-- the black and white lawyers of the NAACP, the leaders of the SCLC, etc. The students of SNCC and later leaders of the Black Panthers became and were an extremely militant and extremist branch of the movement which helped to bring about a conservative backlash.
Furthermore, near the end of the chapter he strongly condemns "knowledge for knowledge's sake," urging Indians to reject scholarly study that does not have their benefit in mind (94). I have to disagree with his assessment. All humans have a right to knowledge of the history of humanity. While it is wonderful when better historical and anthropological appreciation of things leads to better political and economic relations, it is not the duty of anthropologists (who are concerned with both past and present) to act as lobbyists for tribal interests.
--Marina Cassio
If we are to examine how European world views shaped the ways in which the peoples of Native America were understood and treated we must focus on Christianity and how it affected colonization. It is in Columbus' second letter to the crown where he discusses the landscape which he observes in what we now know as mainland South America, as the heavenly paradise. Also when you look at the naming of the islands, you can see where his priorities are. The first two islands he comes in contact with he names, "San Salvador," for the Lord, and "Santa Maria De Concepcion." The next few were named for the Spanish Monarchs, while the whole time Columbus was aware of the existing names given to these islands by their indigenous populations.
ReplyDeleteTodorov discusses in "Conquest of America" that Columbus was mainly motivated by "the need for money and the desire to impose the true God" (10). These were not mutually exclusive to Columbus, and it was personally very interesting to learn that Columbus used the wealth from his voyages to "win back the land and the House of Jerusalem." I had previously not been aware of this.
When we see images from the "discovery" by Columbus, the images are of natives, naked, and in disorder. This is where the native is portrayed as infantile, and in need of the European to colonize and Christianize them. I also think that the images of the natives are reminiscent of the bodies of the damned from the Last Judgment scene in Christianity. These men and women are also shown in the nude and in need of salvation.
Image of Columbus:
http://images.google.com/hosted/life/l?imgurl=c4085a1321379eef&q=columbus%20discovery&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcolumbus%2Bdiscovery%26start%3D140%26ndsp%3D20%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN
-Sean Quinn
Thomas Hobbs, John Locke as well as Rousseau believed in a state of nature. Hobbs thought that people who lived in this ‘state of nature’ would live a very short brutish life until there is some sort of governance that would take over and they would be lifted from this state. Locke on the other hand believes that people are all inherently good in the state of nature and don’t need government to establish laws and order because they have Natural law and reason which establishes order. Rousseau disagreed with Hobbs’ theory that men in a state of nature are bad, he believes that they actually neither good nor bad but it is civilization that creates bad habits in people. He thinks that it is simply the circumstances in the state of nature that forces people to come together and form civilizations.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to consider these texts in light of what we have learned in class. We learned that some people looked at the Native American’s as brutal savages that have either not originated from Adam and Eve or have strayed so far from the holy land that they no longer have the qualities that the civilized people of Europe have. They are considered the fallen people and need the Europeans to come in and civilize them. This concept is similar to the way that Hobbs thinks about people in the ‘state of Nature’ who live very savage and barbaric lives until someone intervenes and governs them. The other perspective that the European’s ‘discovering’ America have of the Native Americans is that they are an infantile people that are like a much younger version of the Europeans. This concept is more similar to the thoughts of Rousseau that the Native American’s are not inherently bad and that they will eventually civilize themselves due to the circumstances presented from living in a state of nature.
-Caroline Van den Berg
In the prologue of Skull Wars, David Thomas states, “Native Americans, seen as fragile and unable to coexist with civilization, became a heroic yet sadly vanishing species, victims of their incompatibility with an advancing, superior form of humanity” (32). Unfortunately, his quote encompasses the mistreatment and inhumane portrayal of Native Americans by Columbus and the Europeans. Since America was unfounded and considered the “land of infancy”, Europe believed that they were the powerhouse and had complete authority to scope this land and make any decisions. This idea that Europe was acting as the absolute powerhouse parallels Hobbes' ideas and beliefs on society, the sovereign, and the state of nature. In this case, Europe is acting as the sovereign and the Native Americans were expected to do whatever they said because at this point, Native Americans were considered to be savages, and not real humans. This inhumane treatment of Native Americans in the 15th century continued on even until the 19th century with the Indian Removal Act in 1830.
ReplyDeleteIn my CC class, we have recently discussed what it means to be in the “state of nature” according to philosophers Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. According to Hobbes, being in the state of nature means that man is free and people are always in competition with one another because there is no security and according to Locke, the state of nature is more peaceful because people are not always fighting and competing with one another. Rousseau believed that the state of nature is free where there is no property and no protection and that there are natural inequalities among people. Europe clearly acts as the sovereign and complete authority, and because the Native Americans could not revolt and fight back, Locke’s idea of the state of nature does not work. The idea of the “Vanishing Indian” can be seen in Hobbes’ state of nature because over time, the Native Americans began to die out due to various diseases and wars created among colonies. A major part of Hobbes’ state of nature is the competition and state of war created among people to survive and the fear that is created by not having enough resources. This competition for survival is a huge factor that contributed to the decline in the population of the Native Americans.
I found the first chapter of Skull Wars to be fascinating because I never knew about the Caribs and Arawaks, and how all those stories that Columbus told the Europeans about them and his overall image of them were completely false. I guess our heroic sense of Columbus and his discovery of America that we learn about a great deal in grade school is another overdramatic generalization that leads students to believe he was the almighty savior of our country when meanwhile, “as his letters and his log make clear, Columbus was scouting the islands for potentials slaves from the very start” (Skull Wars, 9).
Emily Brown
In the readings assigned in Skull Wars, there is an emphasis on the perceived identity of various ethnic groups, especially the Native Americans. There is a general obsession with the identity which has been assigned by Europeans, generations of Americans, and, even contemporary, by the native communities. The beginning of the American identity has been based upon the assigned identity of the Arawaks and the Caribs, and the following comparisons made to each as tribes and to other more “civilized” societies. Like colonialism, stereotypes have a long reaching memory and have had a continued impact on the world today as contemporary decisions hearken back to “ancient” and stale assumptions, such as is seen when dealing with modern day Cannibalism, which incidentally is connected to the supposed practice of cannibalism of the Caribs and the outbreak of Kuru (transmissible spongiform encephalopathy) in Papua New Guinea. While it is hard to justify the eating of people’s brains, etc., it is too easy to call a culture backwards because of lack of understanding. It is easier and simpler to group people under stereotypes like those that are savage and those that are civilized. The concepts of savagery, barbarism, and civilization are just tools of bigotry, ethnic division, and supposed social superiority.
ReplyDeleteIdentity has shaped America, as seen with Lewis Henry Morgan and the name change from the Gordian Knot to the Grand Order of the Iroquois, which seems to show the importance of the unique American identity. Additionally, the world has become so obsessed with identity that it has become profitable to play off of perceptions. At home in New Mexico this is seen through the special privileges that are granted to Indian artists, but more apparent are the commonness of native dances that were once sacred and performed on particular occasions. The naturalness of identity has become distorted and stereotyped, while the general public’s love for social organization has perverted cultures and subjected them to unfair societal parallels.
-Laura Chippeaux
“What did you expect—a warrior?”
ReplyDelete-Sherman Alexie
In the Custer Died for your Sins excerpt, Vine Deloria wrote that “many Indians have come to parrot the ideas of anthropologists…thus many ideas that pass for Indian thinking are in reality theories originally advanced by anthropologists.” Sadly, the ideas generated, in regards to the condition of American Indians, by scientists, anthropologists, and philosophers have been ingrained into the national consciousness and manifest themselves in our popular understanding of Indians. The stoic Indian, or the noble savage, has become our fixed perception of the Indian. Whereas Columbus denied Indians of their alterity, our popular culture (with some help from academia) has maintained a heightened sense of their “otherness” and their idealized relationship with nature. As our current environmental woes worsen, I expect a rise in what Deloria called the “mythical super-Indian.” But why do we continue to conceive of the modern Indian as a relic from “ancient America?” (Guilt?) Our reliance on identifying Indians as relics from the past has had serious consequences for the modern condition of American Indians. According to Deloria, our “slogans [stoicism, etc.] have come to be excuses for Indian failures” and serve as an impediment to young Indians.
Setting aside the issues of identity and perception, the quality of scholarship concerning our subject is a recurring theme that should be explored. There seems to be a large amount of suspicion between American Indians and researchers, and amongst researchers themselves. Given the history of Darwinian principles being applied to Indians it is not surprising, but this suspicion seems to be strong today. David H. Thomas writes optimistically in Skull Wars, that “archeology has made huge strides in understanding Indian origins since Thomas Jefferson dug into his Virginia burial mound.”
-Mitchell Hulse
The archetypical image of Indians as the ultimately natural and spiritual native people, is not only haunting the American imaginations, but also those of Europe. As a child I loved reading trappers’ and travellers’ stories about North American nature and wildlife. Eventually I experienced my own personal discovery of the Native Americans, as a grotesque parallel to Columbus, quite accidentally while searching for my next book in the library. The rest of my childhood I would collect feathers and play “Indians” without realizing that the image of the Native Americans that I came to love so much, was fully fictional. “My” Indians were not real people, but fantasy creations in the image of the “Noble Savage”.
ReplyDeleteI first came about the term “colonial writing” when I studied presentations of Polynesian women in European explorers’ and travellers’ texts. The inner conflict of values compelled Western writers to contradict themselves even within the same paragraph while recording the “otherness” of native people. In an attempt to rationalize their observations, these writers would argue perceived “nobleness” and “savagery” of the same people depending on the situation. In other instances whole so-called “tribes” received one of the labels. Just as the images of Arawaks and Caribs were polarized into the innocent and the savage, the images of the Tahitian and Hawaiian women were constructed as respectively perfectly feminine and disturbingly masculine. The latter stereotyping seemed to be founded in nothing more scientific than the sexual successes and failures of European sailors of the 18th and 19th century. Both the idealizing and demonizing of a whole people, creates two-dimensional and hallow stereotypes that deny the individual persons, as well as distinct groups, their complexity. Such binary classification of all phenomena seems so etched in the Western mindset that it has come to be regarded as a natural human way of reasoning. Even the scholarly sphere is still haunted by Levi-Strauss’ structuralism and its pseudo-mathematic formulas for cultures.
When it comes to our readings, so far I love “Skull Wars” most. I do not have a background in archaeology (so this is extra exciting), but the problems presented in this book are not a novelty to me. While studying Hawaiian culture, I quickly became aware of the “bone wars” between the native Hawaiians and the Western world of science. Where there are colonized people, archaeology seems always to be central in political struggles. The same conflicts related to ideas of sacredness of sites and human remains still continue in Polynesia. What I find especially interesting, is the fact that even in post-colonial time this very ethnocentric, and racist even, imposed Western scientific world view does not make allowances for alternative philosophies and sciences of non-Western people.
Paulina N. Dudzinska
After having just read Rousseau in CC this semester it is very interesting to get a deeper knowledge of native americans and what their lives were like. Rousseau in his essay "on the origin of inequality" claims that the caribs demonstrate an example of man in the state of Nature. This is a particularly interesting choice of natives to use because Rousseau tries to pawn off the state of nature as an idilic almost edenic paradise in which man has a simple solution for all of his needs. The Caribs were stereotyped as the "savage savage," cannibalistic, bellicose and nearly downright evil. I find it odd that Rousseau did not chose to use the arawaks as an example. However I think it is important that I do note that Rousseau did defend the Caribs, trying to show that their way of life was a purer or truer form of life to human nature.
ReplyDeleteThe Second thing I wanted to talk about is how Rousseau took advantage of a european misconception to make his point. The typical european point of view at the time was the indians were simple, savage people, some kind with pity and others war-like and aggressive. Either way they were seen as nearly animals and debates occurred as whether to consider them humans or not. Rousseau uses these sentiments to then argue how society brought about inequality in europe, sighting the native americans as example of uncivilized people outside of societies who have yet to have inequality infect their lives. All of this is good and well except for the fact that Native Americans were civilized and in societies. Europeans did not always recognize Native American forms of government for what they were and as such they just viewed the natives as being less developed. In the end I think it is easy to say that Europeans actively tried to see Native Americans as uncivilized because that view would better benefit them and their motives.
Patrick Fernbach
Could there have been peaceful interaction between European and Native American? What is the ethics of disease? How responsible are Europeans for the epidemics that ravaged the new world? Our classes and readings have generally agreed that it was old world diseases mostly responsible for the near annihilation of the indigenous societies. We have even noted that it was the large population centers, those we would associate cultural achievement and sophisticated civilizations that were disproportionately affected by the plagues. The waves of illness often proceeded Europeans, who would come across radically weakened societies, often torn by civil strife derived from the pestilence. Which begs the question: would colonization have occurred without these epidemics? This counter factual sort of history is utterly impossible to answer or even truly think through. But let's assume for a moment, that the answer is no. Perhaps Columbus' fist expedition would have remained the same. But what about when the Spanish began breaching the mainland. Would guns and steel be enough for a few Spanish soldiers to conquer a full strength Incan, Aztec, or Puebloan society? Once again, that question may be too fanciful to answer properly, but it brings us to another point. Imagine if the Europeans had encountered empires thriving at their height, instead of grappling with plague. Given the immediate enslavement of many Tainos who had yet to succumb from disease, it's unlikely that many cruel practices would have changed. Would not, however, to encounter kingdoms such as the Incan and Aztec have been more akin to what Columbus was originally expecting to find in India? Once again, another unanswerable question, although we are fairly certain that Columbus did not initially expect to forcibly convert and claim entirely new land. He expected to encounter social entities as old and recognizably developed as his own, with which he could trade.
ReplyDeleteSo we must consider what the Europeans could have thought, as the native people literally dissolved before them. I'm taken back to my original question; if the most damaging aspect of the European arrival was also the least intentional, what were the chances for non-imperialist interaction? My goal is not to "excuse" what occurred; the context of the historical period does that already. My greater point, however, is that we have yet to really grapple with these epidemics as anything but stupendous tragedy or horrific mass murder. Once the Europeans arrived, to an extent, their card was played. No matter the tone of their interaction with the Native Americans, most were essentially doomed as soon as Columbus stepped off the boat. Does that contextualize all future interaction? Have the Europeans committed the greatest evil already if unintentionally, and all further acts of cruelty irrelevant? Or does ignorance really pardon the complete extermination of entire peoples?
I'm sorry to ramble on about disease, but I still can't get over the ninety percent figure. It's astounding, without precedent or antecedent. Never have so many been been so brutally killed over such a wide area without ever even intending to do so. What are the ethics of disease? How can we understand European colonization in light of the mass depopulation? Was it bound to happen, in the sense that even if the first encounter lacked all the negatives of Columbus' greed and zealotry, the Natives would still have suffered from the same fate? If depopulation occurs, is it wrong to move in? Or does that land 'belong' to those who survived, even if they had nothing to do with those who died, simply by virtue of being another native. The depopulation of the Americas raises incredible philosophical questions that I feel have not been dealt with any deeper than who is at fault. I did not answer them, but I hope I showed where there is room for though.
Tyson Brody
The most fascinating aspect about the discovery of the New World is the creation of a new European cosmology, one that had to simultaneously account for the Ancients (Greek and Romans) and the peoples of the New World in both time and space. The people discovered were not simply of a different culture or lost through antiquity, but completely unknown. Europeans simultaneously had to grasp with the realization that the world was suddenly more vast than previously known - that there were gaps in both their knowledge and that of the Ancients.
ReplyDeleteIn Contemporary Civilization, we read the works of Montaigne, Sepulveda, and de las Casas, who all offered contemporary views on the subject of the newly found Other. As we discussed in class - who are these people? Are they barbarians? Christians? Could they be converted? But by asking these questions - no matter their final viewpoint - they were constructing a view by comparing themselves to both natives and the Ancients, projecting themselves as the most advanced. For these authors, the question of reason is crucial to their acceptance of the Other - creating yet another break.
Bernard McGrane, who we also read, analyzes the creation of the Other and claims that an inverted space was created to house the Other. Everything that was European was fundamentally not a part of the Other. We see this partitioning geographically (a great ocean separated the continents) and temporally: the Ancients were unaware of the Americas and Europeans could see the native as a "window to the past". So, Europe reorganizes itself as a step forward in time from the Ancients and natives and geographically as the center (instead of Jerusalem).
Finally, I think it's important to note that the natives discovered were used in philosophical inquiries as stand-ins for the natural state or natural law. Rousseau, Locke, Hobbbes, et al, needed the Other as a template. For Locke and Rousseau, what sets us free is society - a step forward. They are forming the idea that progress is a hallmark of Europe. Europe has progressed beyond the Ancients, past the Other. Europe has created a civilization where the rest have faltered - a concept that will be applied as it makes, destroys, and remakes societies.
--
Christopher Chan
cac2161
Reading about the Spanish encounter in the Americas reminded me of the Philippines. The Philippines was a Spanish colony for 300 years. The Spanish conquistadors renamed us to honor Philip II, King of Spain. Before this naming, we were an archipelago of smaller sovereign states, some in part recognized by China and Brunei. In many ways, our first documented encounter with Europeans mirrors that of Columbus and Native Americans in 1492. There are striking parallels between the Philippine and American experience, in terms of the economic and religious motives behind Spanish expansion. Todorov’s reading proved especially provocative in this regard, uncovering colonist attitudes toward the native population in the Americas that can readily be applied to the Philippine encounter.
ReplyDeleteWe’ve explored the definition and creation of both the noble savage and savage savage, represented by the Arawaks and Caribs in Columbus’s narrative. The noble savage can be redeemed, converted and thus assimilated into Spanish colonial society. The savage savage however is past redemption and hence should serve as a slave.
Magellan met both these savage types in the Philippines when he landed there in 1521. He was able to convert Philippine rulers to Catholicism yet ultimately was killed in battle by men of Lapu Lapu, Rajah of Mactan. The king had refused to renounce Islam, which at the time was the major religion practiced in the southern Philippines. Perhaps this why Filipinos were viewed not as savage savages but ones capable of conversion. Filipinos may have possessed the predisposition to Christianity that Columbus perceived in the Indians. In a letter to the Crown, he urged evangelization, arguing that the Indians were “very ready to say that prayers that we teach them and to make the sign of the Cross.” (Todorov, 44). Filipino rulers readily accepted Magellan’s gift of a Santo Niño doll, the Christ Child. Our Spanish rulers gave us a child’s toy. Perhaps this reflects the Spanish “feeling of superiority [engendering] a protectionist behavior” (38). Both Magellan and Columbus looked down on the native Other and treated it with paternalistic familiarity.
Thus the Spanish came and conquered, converting instead of enslaving. Yet their motives were not solely religious. Todorov asserts that the Spanish sovereigns sought vassals over slaves, “subjects capable of paying taxes rather than belonging to a third party” (47). Three decades after their first encounter with the Other, the Spanish converted noble savage Filipinos so that they could tax them. Hence economic considerations also came into play.
-Monica Qua Hiansen
It’s refreshing to think about the world from another cultural viewpoint, particularly one that is not centered on Europe and its scholars. The European way of viewing the world is self-centered (though most civilizations are guilty of this same error) and always places itself at the top any evolutionary scale (culturally, scientifically, etc.). Of course, in doing so, Europe constantly uses itself as a measuring stick for all other civilizations, regardless of obvious differences in history. Columbus was very much afflicted with this self-centered way of thinking, and we’ve seen numerous examples of this in our readings. This way of thinking goes hand in hand with Lewis Henry Morgan’s statement that “the history of the human race is one in source, one in experience, one in progress”. Though by this magnanimous statement Morgan was only trying to embrace the New World as “one” with the Old World, it completely disregards and disrespects any differences. This is like pretending that something is the same when it is not – metaphorically ignoring the elephant in the room.
ReplyDeleteMany of the readings have dealt with a shift in thinking about the New World as Columbus saw it, a rethinking of ideas based on assumptions. In some cases, like that of the Kennewick Man, the discovery attempts to completely revolutionize our modes of thinking about the origins of Native Americans, while others, as discussed in Sasha Nemecek’s article for the Scientific American, redefine specific preconceived notions (the existence of boats, the role of women, the movement across continents). It seems that every discovery reveals some new information that changes our understanding of the New World. This only highlights the fact that we have done the same thing that Columbus and the Europeans did when they arrived in the New World, that is, “denied the alterity” of the Native Americans. It seems that it is a weakness of human perception that we cannot look at anything objectively.
Of course, I am a victim of the same flaws in reasoning that cause me to constantly compare others to myself, without taking into account the differences between myself and the other person. I compare entire cultures to my own and attempt to place everything into pre-labeled boxes. When something appears that does not fit into any box, I pretend that it does not exist. Being forced to abandon my assumptions and boxes will hopefully permit me to have a much more accurate understanding of things.
Cindy Huang
It is increasingly difficult to imagine in our increasingly shrinking world (one where race and creed and even cultural backgrounds are often blurred and overlapping, even disintegrating) what it would be like to be able to encounter a people that is completely other, with which no one we know had had much contact. My parents met in the south pacific, my mom graduated from high school in the Dominican Republic, my Dad in Brazil; I’m of Irish and Mexican heritage and have lived for a year in Argentina. I have friends or acquaintances of such a wide spectrum of races, religions, or, I guess we would have to say, unique individual backgrounds, that I can no better relate to my white, hick friends that I grew up with than with a more recently made Tanzanian friend. Yet, still when I think about someplace I haven’t been (ie. lots of places, but, India, Turkey, New Orleans) I can’t help but let my imagination run wild. I attempt to characterize the place based on whatever people I have met form there, or heard of from there, or accounts of people who I know who have visited there. As a result, I’m confident I conjure some cockamamie understanding of what their lives are like, how they would react to me, how I would interact with them, etc. My experience tells me these imaginings are, without exception, way off base (read: my visit to Mexico City revealed Mexicans nothing like my racist Mexican grandfather who reinvented his Mexican self in the early nineties after leaving the Air Force; my romanticized ideas of gauchos playing cards and tearing meat of a freshly slaughtered cow, was not paralleled by the rough, malnourished ranch hands I encountered when I visited northern Argentina). So I do not hold it against Locke, Rousseau, or even Hobbes, for their simplistic recreations of the state of nature, based heavily on hearsay of New World Indians.
ReplyDeleteI think when these texts were presented to me, though, it was done so with little actual thought of Native American Indians and more focus on the pure ideas. Political correctness was maintained, to a degree, and we were not directed towards stereotypical depictions of Indian culture to better understand the philosophers’ paradigms. We were aware of the fact that they had looked to the Indians (or accounts and depictions) in the creation of their examples, but also that they had little to no idea what they were talking about. So we were instructed to look at just as it was, a bunch of old guys wondering aloud and doing so in whatever fashion best suited their end goals. Not working from what they thought to be the truth, but form what they wished to be the truth. Their musings were always presented linearly, but quite clearly were derived in reverse. So while this course has widened my understanding of my own and popular misconceptions, I feel like I was pretty fair in reading CC; I understood, to a lesser but suitable extent, the remove that these philosophers had from the New World and took that into account whenever they pointed to it for reference.
-Liam Carney
The idea of America as a theological challenge is interesting to me. The Europeans discover this new land and these new people and then realize that the Bible had not properly prepared them for what they were going to find. How could they rationalize these people that they had encountered with the beliefs they held so dear? As we talked about in class, there were two conclusions: they were born from a different creation altogether or they are just infants waiting to be enlightened with the truth.
ReplyDeleteThe question of whether they are sons and daughters of Adam does not make sense to me. If they were such strong Christians and knew their Bible, it must have been pretty clear that there were no other way for these people to come about than by Adam and Eve. If they take the polygenist argument and accept that the Native Americans were born of a separate creation, then aren’t they contradicting what the Bible tells them to be true?
The second conclusion, the more accepted one, is a more logical and theological explanation. They are sons of Adam but they just have yet to had the privilege of receiving the Catholic faith. But then comes in the idea of the Arawaks and the Caribs. How could some of the Native Americans be “convertible,” but others “unconvertible?” How did they justify this theory? Sure, it gave them an excuse to treat the Caribs horribly and praise the Arawaks, but I just cannot imagine how they justified this thinking with Christianity. Were the Arawaks the sons of Adam and the Caribs born of a different creation? If so, then we run into the problem I stated in the beginning. Somewhere, their theology has been altered to fit their unacceptable actions.
I read a couple of the posts above me and I find it interesting that some people were saying how they could not believe that the Europeans came over and tried to convert the Native Americans. Brendan said, “Why is their lack of Christianity a lack of religion?” Sure, this is a legitimate question, but the fact that the Europeans acted as they did, is not surprising in the least bit. Christians still send thousands of missionaries overseas to foreign countries everyday in attempt to convert “unbelievers.” The religion that these “unbelievers” hold is not a religion to Christians. Christianity is the only way. It was to Columbus and it still is today. We are still trying to “civilize” countries that act and believe differently than we do.
Christina Henderson
As we have seen, the image of the "vanishing Indian" is one of the most powerful and enduring conceptions in the American imagination. Before taking this class, I had a vague awareness of the problem of placing Native American peoples in the past, but I never realized how deeply entrenched this notion is in our history. To me, ongoing conflicts between the past and present seem to be at heart of the project of colonization--from the earliest interactions between Europeans and Americans to our modern struggles to reconcile our collective identity as Americans with the catastrophe of colonization for Native America. From the very earliest encounters between Europeans and Native Americans, both groups' pasts and the futures have been tangled up in a complex, often contradictory relationship. As Todorov points out, Columbus set out during a blurry period between medieval and modern times. His motives were equally paradoxical: he hoped to find gold and riches (a thoroughly modern idea) in order to fund a crusade that would liberate Jerusalem (a medieval goal). Todorov's discernment that it is "Columbus's medieval mentality that leads him to discover and inaugurate the modern era" launches the beginning of a European (and later Euro-American) struggle of past and future identities.
ReplyDeleteThe conclusion, soon after Columbus's discovery, that Native America embodied a Europe of the past adds another dimension to the past-future paradox. America was both Europe's future and its past. If Native Americans were infants lacking in property, religion, clothing, waiting for Europeans to bring them into the era of civilization, this was complicated by the idea that Europeans had fallen from their state. Had Americans degenerated into barbarians or had Europeans fallen from the state of the noble savage? The project of colonization turned America into the land of the Europeans' future, and in this act, they believed that the Native American would disappear--as a natural result of a natural progression.
The fact that Native Americans did NOT perish, despite the ceaseless rhetoric and imagery of the "vanishing Indian," brings the contemporary problems of Native American scholarship into sharp focus. In particular, reading Skull Wars and Vine Deloria's essay, impressed upon me just how timeless this clash is in American history. The Kennewick Man controversy opened up a can of worms regarding just whom the past "belonged" to. The very idea of ownership of the past emphasizes its great significance to the conflict between Americans with and without Native heritage. From the earliest encounters, Europeans have attempted to take ownership of Native America--through naming its people, studying its cultures, languages and traditions. The early and persistent interest in archaeological and anthropological study of Native Americans demonstrates a desire to possess Native American past. Deloria makes it apparent just how harmful this approach can be to modern Native American communities. In focusing on the "lost" culture of Native Americans, rather than the massive obstacles these communities face in the present, a variation on the theme of the "vanishing Indian" is replayed.
~Laura Schreiber
The vanishing Indian is an abstract and contradictory statement because there isn’t just one type of Indian, and it seems to apply to both the slaughtering of Native Americans during Western expansion and the assimilation of Indians into our culture. There seems to be reluctance for anthropologists to accept that Native Americans, like all other cultures present in America, are now part of the modern era. Morgan for instance, saw the Native American of his day as being “inauthentic,” because they weren’t like the Indians of the past. To me this is a bit preposterous. Imagine calling the European Americans of today “inauthentic,” because we don’t sit around and discuss states rights or keep domestic animals. I feel like as a scientist, Morgan was so focused on recording his own preconceived notion of “Indianess” he missed a lot of what potentially might have been learned. He broke the first rule of scientific observation, which is impartiality. He also spoke of the “only real Indian culture,” as though modern forms of Indian culture are no longer somehow “Indian.”
ReplyDeleteHe also spoke as though Native Americans had one homogenous culture. At one point in Skull wars the text says “They invented a synthetic ‘ethnographic present,’ by which they began reconstructing ‘traditional’ Indian lifeways by factoring out more recent changes. According to the nineteenth-century historian Herbert Howe Bancroft, they tried to describe Indians as they were first seen by Europeans… along the several paths of discovery….in all their native glory, and before the withering hand of civilization was layed upon them.”(pg 46) The anthropologists appear to condemn the actions of their fathers (which they believed tainted Indian culture) while heavily romanticizing the “native glory” of American Indians. It doesn’t really occur to them that Indian culture may in fact be a mix of tradition and more European customs- because all cultures evolve and influence each other.
Another thing that confuses me about the texts is how anthropologists were so eager to catalogue the “vanishing Indian” but were less eager to provide actual assistance (okay their were those schools that were supposed to make Indian children assimilate into Western society but they were culturally insensitive and not very good). How could they just watch an entire culture disappear? As they (Morgan and Boas) were enthusiastically collecting artifacts, they actually did many tribes a disservice by digging up bodies, and taking artifacts that still were the property of many living tribes. Not only were the Indians vanishing, but so were the traces of their existence from the earth- as their “artifacts” were moved to museums.
Nora Machuga
European world views in fact shaped the way Native Americans were thought of, and it’s easy to see how through examining Todorov’s analysis of the journals and letters Columbus kept and wrote about his experience with the Natives. Columbus seemed to have many preconceived ideas about the Indians, and he often made his “observations” of them reflect those ideas. For example, Columbus, the religious crusader, states: “I have known that they were people disposed to submit themselves and to convert to our Holy Faith much more readily by love than by force” (43). Todorov remarks numerous times about how Columbus sees what he wants to see rather than that for which there is actual evidence. And this quality didn’t only occur with regard to converting the Indians to Christianity. For instance, Columbus, the gold seeker, writes in his journal: “Then he recalled that at the mouth of the river Tagus, near the sea, gold is found, and it appeared certain to him that this river must have gold” (20). Todorov explains that just about everything within that statement is either wrong or illogical, and thus is just another example of Columbus seeing what he wants. This character trait may be a result of how Europeans saw themselves – essentially, as always right, compared to other cultures, especially that of the Native Americans.
ReplyDeleteColumbus was quick to make sweeping judgments about the Natives. He writes: “All that they have they give for any trifle we offer them” (38), referring to how the Native Americans apparently did not know how to barter. However, just because Indians did not share the same economic value system as Europeans does not mean that they are inferior or “like beasts.” In class we talked about how Columbus denied the Native American culture completely, and rather than attempting to interpret it, he simply viewed it as a blank canvas “awaiting the Spanish and Christian inscription,” (36) as Todorov writes. However, Columbus also helped to paint a picture of the “savage savages,” or the Indians who could not be saved by Christianity and thus were “fit to be ruled” [as slaves]. Thus, 15th century Native America consisted of several peoples who could either be converted to Christianity or traded as slaves, either of which would be favorable for the Europeans. It was the denial of Indian culture that led to this way of thinking.
David Sims
Ever since Columbus “discovered” the New World, the Native American story has been manipulated and skewed to fit certain ideological and nationalistic parameters. Even today, modern anthropologists are still trying to break from the emotional and political subjectivity through which Native American history and society is viewed. When Columbus first encountered the people of the New World, he brought back stories of a “naked” people with savage tendencies. This idea of the savage was expanded with the tales of the Arawaks, the noble savage, and the Caribs, the savage savage. In the European mind, it was up to the civilized people of the Old World to save the noble, childlike tribes from the barbaric, cannibalistic tribes. This was one of the justifications used by the Europeans to come into this new land and dominate the people they found there; after all it was for these Indians “own good.”
ReplyDeleteI believe that another underlying reason why Europeans felt the need to assimilate these people is the universal fear of the “other.” This fear existed even when the first humans walked the earth and encountered other hominids. For some reason, the human condition cannot allow for the “other” to exist. All the justifications were merely used to mask this fear. That is why, when all the reasoning behind the justification eventually lessened or disappeared, Europeans and their American descendents persisted in their persecution of these foreign people. In more recent times, we have been able to come to a greater understanding of Native American society and can recognize similarities between more familiar cultures from around the world and theirs.
Even so, the path to understanding Native Americans has been a long and difficult road, bombarded by setbacks in thinking and people’s own prejudice. This is clearly demonstrated by Lewis Henry Morgan. Morgan’s first important work about Native American life, The League of the Iroguis (1851), was an important step in trying to understand and respect Indian people and society. However, Morgan’s later work, Ancient Society (1877), counteracted much of the progressive ideas set forth in his earlier book. By promoting the theory that civilization is the inevitable product of social evolution, and barbarism (the state in which Indian tribes existed, according to Morgan) was merely a transitional state, Morgan was dooming Native American culture. The new Americans would be doing the Indians a favor by helping them along the social evolutionary ladder. Morgan reconfirmed the image of the “vanishing Indian” by helping to legitimize, however inadvertently, the notion that Native American culture is not something to be preserved or respected but, rather, it is something to upgrade.
It does not really matter when and where we start looking at Native American culture and history. Most of the sources concerning this topic were written from the view of someone studying an “other.” Even today, modern anthropology is still trying to shed the prejudices of the past. But the battle is a hard one that has existed from the times even before man first migrated to the American continents, well before Columbus even set foot in the New World.
Shoshana Schoenfeld
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the prologue to Skull Wars, Thomas notes that the issue surrounding the Kennewick man is about politics—“The dispute is about control and power, not philosophy” (xxv). This is the case, of course, with most every perception of Native Americans. It is in the history of the United States that the national perception of its ethnic groups will be manipulated to suit the needs of the manipulators. When Native Americans were resistant to colonization they were savages, when the immigrant-Americans wanted to distance themselves from the English they used Native American imagery to stand defiant. In the grand scheme of colonization this is an oft repeated theme. As is often stated in the readings, these conquistadors tended to have predetermined ideas about what they were going to find, what they were going to encounter, and what it was going to mean. It is plain that while today we characterize some tribes as being more war-driven than others this was not what was being recorded by explorers when they made note of the Arawaks and the Caribs. In the broadest sense the Arawaks and the Caribs were one people who became one thing or the other depending on how they reacted and most likely even how they explorers and settlers wanted them to react. Records show that many settlers were just itching for excuses to attack and displace Native Americans. It was not a case of coexistence, it was a case of convenience, and thus the contradictory and multiple accounts of the colonization project worked just fine to support whomever needed that support.
ReplyDeleteWhat, after all, was Vine Deloria critiquing? Native Americans are still viewed in whichever way benefits those painting the pictures, and it’s not hard to believe that that may have progressed to the point where they themselves begin to believe these images. Noble or Savage, vanishing or resurging, even shaken from their place as original “owners” of the land, the picture changes to suit those who have and need the control and power.
Anastasia Lugo Mendez
Francis Bacon and Jose de Acosta relate very different narratives about the European encounters of the New World. Both employ great imagination, but in my mind, Bacon approaches his subject matter with greater flexibility than Acosta does. This flexibility allows Bacon to envision the people and places of the New World as completely independent from Europe. Acosta, on the other hand, attempts to situate the indigenous peoples of the Americas in a history that is indistinct from that of Western Europe. Acosta’s tendency to examine the people of the New World and their origins as if they were part of a defected offshoot of European culture sheds light how Europeans came to embrace erroneous notions of the autochthonous peoples of the Americas.
ReplyDeleteOne of the greatest differences between Bacon’s account and that of Acosta was the extent to which each made his authorial presences evident. To his credit, Bacon maintained a rather unobtrusive presence. This cannot be said of Acosta’s narration. Not only did Acosta continuously couch his analyses of the origins of the New World in terms of Western thought and Western inventions, but, in my mind, he seemed unable to fathom the existence of a history divergent from Biblical narratives or the existence of a culture outside that of the Western Europe. Furthermore Acosta proved unable to remove himself and the culture context he was born when attempting to analyze the origins of the Indies. The inability to remove himself and his cultural predispositions from his analysis causes him to repeatedly return to the question of how the inhabitants of the New World discovered the Indies since they lacked the appropriate navigational skills. I must admit I have this question a little absurd because in my mind it seems to suggest that Acosta is unable to comprehend the New World as a place existent and evolving prior to Columbus discovery of it. In this way, Acosta comes of as rather small-minded, incapable of grasping that people, places and things can exist and develop prior to European encountering.
Despite of his staunch advocacy of preeminence of European history and cultural evolution, Acosta surprisingly takes interest in arguing that the Americas were inhabited before, if not a great deal, before European discovery. Using a rather clever rhetorical device, Acosta manages to perhaps inadvertently dispel counterarguments by openly acknowledging his firm belief in the Bible’s accounts of the creation of man. His faith in this notion prompts numerous unfounded assumptions and yet Acosta manages to arrive upon one cogent conclusion: that the landmasses of the Americas and Asia must at some location come in very close contact.
- Maria Elena Quintana
As a deeply intellectual society, we are each individually convinced that our ideas and core values are directly shaped by a personal experience of life that makes our viewpoints fundamentally unique. We want to and must attribute deliberate agency to the formation of our judgment. I, for one, considered myself educated and aware of disrespect towards and alienation of indigenous American peoples – from the time of Columbus’s ‘discovery’ to the Boaz’s ‘grave robbing’ of the early 1900s to conditions of modern reservations. I presumptuously thought my open mind and education removed me from the ignorant masses who pervade history and whose bigotry shames America. On the first day of this course, statistics only boosted my self-satisfaction. I read:
ReplyDelete“85% of Americans readily claim that Columbus discovered American, viewing him in a positive light.”
"I don’t prescribe to those schoolbook simplifications," I was proud to be in a room of students who undoubtedly had far more progressive opinions of historical events and figures.
Through the last few meetings and readings, however, I have come to realize the simplistic nature of my own assumptions and how greatly these ideas permeate the community that raised me, and since this is the means by which I developed my views, I also learned that they truly were not ingenuous or in any sense built on critical thinking or personal experience. Specifically, I have recognized how profoundly the naive and deluded archetypes of both the ‘Noble Savage’ and the ‘Vanishing American’ are enmeshed in my notion of the Native American culture (which is clearly not a single culture – a fact that I know intellectually, but in a sense I have emotionally and internally disregarded this). This struck me powerfully in a class last week in which our discussion of how Henry Lewis Morgan and his Grand Order of the Iroquois would ‘play Indian’ led to a reminiscence of childhood “Indian Guides” and “Indian Princesses.” We hardly delved into the subject during class, as it turned out I was among the only students who actually participated in these groups as a kid (possibly less common in our generation because of movement towards ‘political correctness,’ which certainly excludes distasteful face painting as an impersonation of peoples decimated by ancestors of the imitators themselves). I took these and other considerations to heart, and honestly spent time with myself contemplating the validity of my own impressions of a myriad of populations who shaped the course of history around the world in a very profound way. With this as an indication of the direction in which this course will lead me, I am excited on an entirely different level for the semester ahead. More so than I imagined, this class will stimulate my thoughtful introspection and facilitate the development of my own educated world perspective, breaking down unfounded misconceptions and allowing for deliberate reconstruction. Hopefully, in a number of months, I will be one step closer to truthfully and critically being able to hold myself accountable for my beliefs and their origins.
Zoe Feld
Europeans historically have a knack for being able to cover up and alter history in whichever way would favor them. One of the most interesting points made in class was the fact that the "universal victory of Christianity was the motive that animates Columbus." I always had the misconception that Columbus was sent out to find a westward path to Asia, in essence a shortcut to riches, when in fact Columbus had to request funding for his far-fetched ideas. The Europeans didn't necessarily "cover up" this fact because if anything it humanizes Columbus and his crusades. Rather than a man sent out to the unending seas by his country, I now imagine a man desperate in discovering a path that would fund the crusades to liberate Jerusalem giving this figure a purpose and drive. When he reached the New World and realized that he had not achieved his goals, it is almost understandable that he might have panicked and did the only thing he could think of to do--producing a whole country of people ready to be domesticated to become part of their society as fellow Christians or slaves, much like animals were domesticated (not that pets are considered fellow Christians...) to distract from the fact that he had epically failed.
ReplyDeleteHowever, my main point is that it's fascinating the extent to which history can change depending on who writes it. There isn't even documentation about how the Native Americans were slaughtered and more than decimated, while a comparatively silly (ok not silly, but I'm exaggerating) black plague freaks everyone out. By controlling history, one can have so much power by gaining the ability to change others' perceptions of whoever you want. People can easily forget what the Native Americans went through because they never learned about it in the first place. The one with the loudest voice is the one who is heard by the masses, and when Columbus and his fellows spoke of the primitive and savage Natives, people listened. When Columbus stated that this and this was what the Natives said to me, people didn't question him although it should have been obvious that they wouldn't have been able to communicate.
I mainly find it interesting that Columbus and the Europeans generally regarded the Native Americans as barbarians and even questioned if they were of the same species as themselves when they were being uncivilized by wiping out the history of a race (it's just common courtesy to give them some face time in the history books...). If even a child has the moral sense to realize that it's wrong to go to another kid's sandbox, without even meaning to (because it's slightly more justified if you had the intention of hurting this specific kid because he taken the last juice box you wanted), destroy whatever he's building in there, and take away his shovel so he can't build anymore, then what is the reasoning for an entire continent of progressive and highly civilized people to do it?
Of course, it is not that Europeans specifically have the tendency to rewrite history however they want, but most, if not all, humans have the desire to better their self-image. History is a skewed retelling of events because of this very reason; no one wants to be the bad guy so when they win (and ironically many times with brute force) they will put themselves in the best light as possible. Perhaps if Columbus had stumbled upon a country of people with highly advanced technologies, the Europeans would have been the savages of the old world, saved from their miserable existence by the generous race of the New World. However, their salvation could have been in a world of nurture where they could grow to reach a higher state of civilization or in enslavement to a "better" world. I digressed a lot in this post, but my last remark is that I can only hope that mankind as a whole has evolved enough to reach a point of maturity to not selfishly rewrite history and instead tell the truth. How ironic that growing up, we are always told we're not old enough for the truth yet, and it turns out that much of the world doesn't ever learn the truth about a lot of things. Assuming that growth actually does increase with time, people should be more capable of independent thought now more than ever before, so that we can consider but not wholly believe the tales of one side, and eventually uncover soft-spoken and vanishing histories that exist but are so easily overlooked.
-Hannah Chang
The concept of progress, as a linear trajectory to higher levels representing improvement, was central to the ethnocentrism and egocentrism that influenced Europeans to misunderstand, misrepresent, and mistreat Native Americans. The Europeans imagined and, even more dangerously, believed that their condition of civilization was the pinnacle of humanity. The belief in spreading Christianity parallels the belief in spreading civilization, and, to an extent, were seen as synonymous missions. Christopher Columbus exemplifies this mindset, as, according to Todorov, one of his fundamental goals was to “fund a crusade to liberate Jerusalem.” This perspective justified the accumulation of wealth on the part of the Europeans, even if it was at the expense of the Native Americans. It was this faith in the Christian mission, along with a lack of ability and, arguably, willingness to communicate with the Native Americans that made the acceptance of alterity impossible. Lewis Henry Morgan’s statement embodies the limited, linear perception: “The history of the human race is one in source, one in experience, one in progress.” Therefore, there is only one manner of living that is acceptable.
ReplyDeleteThe linear view of progress, furthermore, did not only allow for the justification of mistreatment, but, also led to the misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Native American culture. Indeed, it appears that if it was not at the extreme of attempting to convert and “civilize” the Native Americans, it was at the extreme of romanticization. Rousseau demonstrates this point of view, since he developed the concept of the “noble savage.” Within this view, the Native American lived within a utopia, uncorrupted by “society.” It is obvious that actually learning about the Native American culture was not done, and, if it was, it was at a superficial level dominated by romantic imagination. Therefore, their complex systems were non-existent and did not constitute a “society”; thus, they remained as either idealized or inferior entities that were ultimately separate from the rest of humankind.
I found one of Todorov’s statements to be strikingly bold and resonant of the persistent viewpoint of progress. He writes that the “sixteenth century perpetrated the greatest genocide in human history.” In seeing the word genocide, my mind is directed toward Sudan. Indeed, it is the fear of alterity and the urge to eliminate it since the “other” way of life is perceived as wrong that play significant roles in genocide. The tactics of isolating and identifying the “others” are present in recent genocides and in the genocide to which Todorov points. It seems that civilization continues to view progress as linear, as exemplified in interventionist policies and wars. I think that progress needs to begin to be seen as a local progress, rather than a general vision of progress, that exists in diverse manners, as opposed to in a linear manner (although, this is subject to change as I continue to think and learn). The misconceptions, furthermore, continue, as Deloria describes in "Anthropologists and Friends." In my brief study of anthropology, it seems that the linear view of progress is not dominant. Yet, Native Americans are reduced to theories and objects of study. This is not to say, however, that the study of anthropology is not necessary or worthwhile; rather, the methods and perspectives of some, objectify Native Americans as entities to be seen through a sort of tourist gaze as opposed to seeing and representing them as living and breathing human beings.
-Michelle Rosales
The discovery of America or the Americas, also known as the New World in the European sense is truly fascinating. There is an ongoing debate about who was first responsible for discovering the New World, as Columbus was believed to be the man with such a title. According to the University of Michigan survey, 85% of Americans claim that Columbus discovered America, but the issue is highly debated in other texts. In the first myth of the book “Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest,” the author Matthew Restall critiqued the idea that few men were responsible for the conquest of and achievements in Latin America. The Spanish conquest was a strenuous, long-lasting effort, with planned out invasion methods and patterns. “How could so few [referring to Columbus, Pizzaro, Cortes] accomplish something so great? Because they themselves were exceptionally great men. This is the myth that is the focus of this chapter” (3). Also Restall claims that Columbus’ “geographical vision was… wrong” as “his achievements were the result of historical accident and his role in an historical process that was far larger than he was” (4). “There seems to be a human impulse to personalize the past, to render complex processes intelligible and accessible by reducing them to emblematic characters and a narrative of their actions” (4). Members of highest power and recognition over-exemplified their efforts and over-dramatized their success stories, receiving an unprecedented amount of praise, reward and fame.
ReplyDeleteThe European arrival and colonization should not be understood as just a decline in indigenous population. While it is true that the colonists contributed heavily to the decline and diseases played a large part, for example diseases like small pox, influenza, measles and typhus, the resistance that the Native Americans contributed, in order to survive the decline of their culture and people, must be well-documented and understood. The Native Americans presented themselves as peaceful, nature-loving and spiritual people. They partook in ceremonial dances and portrayed heavy ritual responsibilities. This was very unusual to the Europeans. There was in a sense a clash of cultures. The Europeans did not know how to cope, communicate and live with the “other” (Native Americans). The natives at first encounter would present themselves as good-natured, gentle and dignified people. The first sight of the Native Americans and their inhabited lands to Columbus and his men was like a visit to the Garden of Eden, a wonderful place of nature with primitive people, as if miraculously the world had come back to the beginning of time!
Yauheni “Eugene” Abrazhevich
What really fascinated me and caught me by surprise was Columbus' true motives for sailing to the East Indies. Growing up, I've always known that Columbus wanted to serve the Spanish monarchs and find a faster route. Upon finding out his religious agenda, new light has been shed on the discovery of the New World and the subsequent treatment of the peoples there from the advent of colonization. What I gathered from the Todorov reading was the definition of Columbus in the manifestation of his two passions: nature and religious fanaticism. His total disregard for the native peoples of America made me nothing short of angry. For a man of such pure faith, albeit disturbed, to marginalize, demonize and begin a systematic destruction of a peoples is senseless and provides the thesis for the colonist agenda for subsequent centuries. In Columbus' specific case (which makes his travels significant) "...human beings have no particular place."(Todorov, 33)
ReplyDeleteJose de Acosta account for the existence of the American Indians was further indicative of the attitudes that were established from the Columbus' voyages. Similar to Columbus' religious finalist strategy when determining Indian diplomacy, Acosta discusses the population story of the Americas within the confines of Holy Writ.
"We opened their eyes with our faith, which teaches us that all men come from one man." (Acosta, 73) Reference to Indian "blindness" denotes the inferiority of the Indians and the inevitability of their awakening by a group of people that was ordained by God to do so. For me, this provided more fuel to my anger.
Daniel Castillo, djc2135
Lewis Henry Morgan’s radical reorganization of human cultural progress immediately rings problematic in this year. His mission seems symptomatic of a Victorian preoccupation with categorization and the pseudoscientific “meaning” conveyed by such physical ordering. Just as physiognomy created a legible personality chart out of the face, and alpha taxonomy introduced a defined structure to the natural environment, Morgan’s meticulously qualified hierarchy of progress provided a way to study the stages of our own development in the present. The problems that lie in such systems are obvious, among others, the promotion of a relationship of removal: that of the observant self and a predefined other. But beyond all degrees condescension or marginalization insinuated, I find it more interesting to ask what it means to conceive of a world, Morgan’s own, in which our history (or “contemporary ancestors”) dwells by our side. What does negating time, and thus placing a singular process in a multitude of contemporaneous locations, do?
ReplyDeleteWhile I cannot really answer this question satisfactorily, it may be useful to look at another case in which a similar view was taken. In “Ornament and Crime”, Adolph Loos takes as his general thesis that “the evolution of culture is synonymous with the removal of ornamentation from objects of everyday use”. For Loos, if culture stretches over too great a span of time among inhabitants of a state, that is, if members of a population represent too many positions on a track of cultural progress, it “slow[s] down the cultural development … of humanity”. Despite his extreme stance, Loos recognizes the happiness that ornamentation can afford a craftsman, and that he himself can derive happiness from another’s joy. In this case, Loos uses the spectrum of development to clarify the direction that the future needs to take instead of studying it as a palimpsest of cultural history, like Morgan does. Loos, however disparaging he may be, sheds light on the fact that however disparate the apparent factions of society, they are dependent on each other. When Morgan negates time, he negates the notion of a present and the collective definition of humanity that it entails.
Vine Deloria, Jr.'s writings are characterized by emphatically capitalized words, withering satire and hilarious descriptions like this one from _Custer Died For Your Sins_, published in 1969,of the American Indian's main foe, the anthropologist:
ReplyDelete"Go into any crowd of people. Pick out a tall gaunt man wearing Bermuda shorts, a World War II Army Air Force flying jacket, an Australian bush hat, tennis shoes, and packing a large knapsack incorrectly strapped on his back."
His is an important voice for Native American rights and visibility,but it is important to note that not all of his ideas or correct, or rational.
In the summer of 1998, H. David Brumble published an article in _American Literary History_, "Vine Deloria, Jr., Creationism, and Ethnic Pseudoscience" (can be found on JSTOR). In it, Brumble rightly criticizes Deloria for his assertions of the "Myth of Scientific Fact" in _Red Earth, White Lies_.
Among the ideas Deloria expounds:
-The Earth is not very old, geologists are wrong, and Native Americans were present at the beginning of the world.
-Carbon dioxide causes gigantism; our increasing industrialism accounts for why sports players keep getting bigger.
-"..there were mammoths or mastodons still living in the eastern United States at the time the Pilgrims landed"
If scientific fact is mythic, where does Deloria gain the "truth"? He believes that the oral history of American Indians (ostensibly only of American Indians) is of real scientific value.
Lionizing a group because of ethnicity is incorrect in any form, but, while disappointing for Deloria's readers, perhaps it is time for this particular social pendulum to swing in a new direction; after all, white Europeans have been propagating their racist, elitist, imperialistic, and religious agenda on this continent for half a millennium.
And the Native American agenda probably involves more civil rights and better standards of living than genocide, disease, abuse, rape...
Galen Boone
Julius (Jude) Tedaldi
ReplyDeleteTzevetan Todorov in, The Conquest of America, wrote that since 1492 “the world has shrunk… men have discovered the totality of which they are a part, whereas hitherto they formed a part without a whole.” (5) The European encounter of the New World was, at once, a consummation and an inception, both reviving particular linkages of the ilk forged through puissant and potent phantasm. Their full-body grope of the globe’s rind, aroused in Europeans a sense of sovereignty and, too, the compulsion to exercise it. The imagination fed these notions and its “1492” activation was such a behemoth, that it did and continues to permeate through the pores of the collective and individual integument. The imagination gave man a relationship with limitlessness and, thus, his feelings of having conquered the vast. In the imagination was established Self and Other. In it they christened lands and people— naked babies to be submerged in European holy water.
ReplyDeleteAnd in it, as Todorov points out, is the creation of: us but primitive, us but fallen, ideas grounded in “egocentrism, in the identification of our own values with values in general, of our I with the universe – in the conviction that the world is one” (42, 43) In Ancient Society, Lewis Henry Morgan confirms this notion “The history of the human race is one in source, one in experience, one in progress.” (Preface) Everyone must simultaneously hold one belief, so notions of singularity went about making manifest constructs of the imagination. Our progress is Progress. The Other was fast a utility to serve singularity. Todorov’s discussion of a finalist strategy in relation to Columbus’ operations were apt. The Others were not agents of their own, but lifeless socks for having eye-button-souls sewn on and puppeteering. “He knows in advance what he will find; the concrete experience is there to illustrate a truth already possessed.” ( Todorov 17) What did exist in both Worlds was irrelevant, because the Europeans established the nature of their linkage before it was ever made. The figure of a Norsemen found in the house at Thule reminds me why a balloon seems alive when you draw upon it mouth and eyes, it has humanity. And perhaps that it is not what the new world encountered, but rather, dramatists with a propensity for the tragic.
Maria Jagodka
What was disconcerting to me about realizing that the man who will, most likely until the end of time; be revered among people as a hero for “discovering America” and who, as Todorov describes, “it is with him that our genealogy begins, insofar as the word beginning has a meaning” (5) is cruel, and who saw America as a land full of, not people, but opportunities, heathens, to Catholicize. Columbus is not the popularized image that elementary school children are trained, year after year, among Thanksgiving festivities and painted hand turkeys, to find valiant. Beyond my conscious decision to boycott Columbus Day from now on, what I find even harder to believe is that fifty percent of modern Native Americans believe that Columbus “discovered America.”
ReplyDeleteColumbus’s mode of conquest, to deny the alterity of these Native peoples is the root of racism and any kind of prejudice. By defining other people what they lack, instead of what they are, is the fundamental fallacy of humankind. It only makes sense that one of the most horrible genocides of a people began with this “finalist strategy.” As soon as Columbus’s ships brushed against the shores of Native America, the land and the people were defined solely by what they lacked. The tale of the discovery of America, like the histories of other genocides in the past, must continually be reassessed, corrected, and these deep scars on a people, a culture, must never be forgotten. Mankind must be conscious and never lose sight of these mistakes so that they will not be repeated. The story of the discovery of America must be retold, with a new beginning, not one of European arrival.
-Sarah Darro
In Todorov's 'Part I:Discovery', from his novel "In the Quest of America: The Question of the Other", he discusses the discovery of Native Americans and America. Columbus and his explorers embarked on their journey from Spain to the Western Hemisphere. The discovery of America, then was for colonization purposes. The Spaniards were not concerned about the people on the journey there, but upon landing they were faced with a people that they had never known of. Their lifestyle and settlements established the Native Americans as a savage people that the Europeans felt they had to save or kill.
ReplyDeleteThis empericist attitude struck a cord with me. I thought that it was a bit ineffective to attempt to suffer a great land of people for expansion purposes. It was as if the Spaniards had a goal in mind and that was to "Live in the world together, but alone." The violence that plagued the 'The New World' was a waste of time to me. There were some Europeans that came to inhabit the land that wanted to learn more about the native people and their methods of substantiation. Too few men from the 'Old World' wanted to "Live together", while many decided it was better to make an obvious separation of themselves from the Native Americans. Yes, there was the possibility of a savage attack, but that is where the leaders should have made better attempts to be at peace withe the Native Americans.
Shambreya Burrell
When we read books in Contemporary Civilization, the background history is oftentimes left out altogether, or not emphasized in a way that helps understand the more practical aspects of the authors’ philosophies. Philosophic and scientific works are usually written to fix a current problem or to explain and prove something that was previously unclear or unknown. Without knowing the situations about which authors such as Rousseau, Locke, and Hobbes have written, it is difficult to understand the function and purpose of their writing. Looking at Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau through the lens of the history of Native Americans has given me more insight into what drove these authors to their desks to write. This issue of “the other” appears to be a prominent issue in various works. Locke, Rousseau, and (as we have read in CC) Montaigne as well have focused on how to deal with and treat others who seem to be so very different.
ReplyDeleteAs to Columbus’s “discovery” of the New World, the use of the term baffles me in more ways than we have even discussed in class. If everything is already known in Columbus’s “finalist strategy of interpretation” through the Bible, then how can Columbus, or anyone, have ever discovered anything?! They should have known from the Bible that it was there to begin with.
This way of interpretation through the Bible seems strange to me. While I can understand why it was done, I still can hardly believe that people solely followed the Bible. Yet, this practice was not done only in North America; it also occurred in places all over Africa. Whenever the Europeans could not understand how a community was so built up in Africa or why a people were in a foreign location, they would try to attribute it to the lost peoples from the Bible. At points throughout the discoveries of different lands, an individual story from the Bible was likely used to try to explain the origin of many different peoples.
Undoubtedly, these stories that mark the beginnings of anthropology and archaeology in North America must be looked at with a skeptical eye. It seems as if the pride of the Europeans and their provincial vision that was focused more on the Bible than any of their apparent surroundings caused them to write about the Native Americans with what seems like a more than biased viewpoint. The Native Americans were misrepresented in many of the works written by Europeans shortly after their first encounter with the peoples of the New World. Both the theory of the “noble savage”, and that of the “savage savage” do not represent the truth. The Native Americans cannot be boxed into these two categories. Moreover, I feel that the Native Americans should have been described on their own terms and not as compared to Europe. Of course, a description of “the other” lacking any sort of relation to the observer is rather impossible, but the Europeans need not have so distinctly and horribly categorized the Native Americans. The Native Americans had their own style of living that worked for them and should not have been looked down upon so much by the proud Europeans.
Oops! cam91011 is Camille Hutt
ReplyDeleteIn CC, we are forced to deal with a plethora of thinkers that attempt to describe a “state of nature”. Each differs in his definition of this state, but all agree on one essential point: The state of nature describes the state of mankind before the development of European civilization. Whether conceived as warlike, fearsome, or admirable, the state of nature is always defined by its primitiveness, by its potential to develop into something resembling civilized European society. But while the state of nature lies in civilized Europe’s past, it describes the present condition of Native America, at least in European thought. In effect, the discovery of the New World and its inhabitants provided these philosophers with a conceptual device, enabling each of them to envision what mankind was like at its “starting point.” Interestingly, though, none of these eminent thinkers seemed to base these conceptions on Native American societies themselves, on the actual people that Columbus and others encountered on their expeditions. Many references are made to “savages” and to the “state of nature” in these works, but virtually none to the way Native Americans actually lived. The state of nature is always based on theory, never on reality.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Todorov’s interpretation of the Columbian expedition, this phenomenon didn’t surprise me nearly as much. Columbus’s finalist interpretation, his inability to acknowledge the difference between himself and those he meets, seems to have had a heavy hand in engendering the myth of the “noble savage”: “What is denied is the existence of a human substance truly other something capable of being not merely an imperfect state of oneself.” One finds this idea in Bacon’s The New Atlantis in Acosta’s writings as well. At the other extreme, as was mentioned in lecture, Columbus completely rejected any similarity between Europeans and Indians. Either the natives were generous, God-seeking creatures, or they were cannibalistic and wild. If these ideas were propelled by much of the literature available to Rousseau and others in Europe, it is no surprise that they treated Native America as a concept rather than as an actual entity. Not only did Rousseau contribute significantly to the idea of the “noble savage”, but was influenced by it as well. I think that the concept of the “savage savage” can be found in the writings of thinkers like Hobbes, who describes the state of nature as one of fear and competition.
Benjamin:
ReplyDeleteFor this first blog entry I really wanted to focus on one idea that really struck me during lecture. When we discussed America as a “Land of the Infants” vs. A “Land of the Fallen”, I really enjoyed how it related to the ideas of Locke and Rousseau. The concept of this hierarchy of societies that begins in a state of nature and culminates in the pinnacle of human development, European culture, really paints a picture of the psychology held by Europeans during the age of exploration. On one hand, the “Land of the Infants” idea puts these new peoples in a positive, hopeful, perspective. It yields a mentality in which they can be converted, improved upon, molded into a higher culture. However the “Land of the Fallen” ideology paints the new world as one to be conquered, one of evil that must be destroyed and cleansed of a loss of humanity. This second idea is, as was stated in class, a more medieval concept about decline of a once great society into darkness.
The thing that bothers me with these opposing ideologies is that something doesn’t quite fit. If we follow Locke’s idea that these people must still be in the state of nature, then the assumption then follows that they have not signed a social contract and thus live outside of society. However, it is definitely clear that these people had great civilizations and complex, cohesive societies that thrived for centuries before Europeans arrived on the continent. Rousseau’s idea that these people were content living in ignorance and the state of nature has similar faulty logic. Is it possible that many western philosophers were encouraged to think these ideas in order to legitimize colonization of the New World? The African continent was populated by cultures that many considered even more savage than America, and yet most of the continent was never colonized despite being much closer to Europe. Why did the New World provide Europeans with such a strong infatuation? Why were Europeans content to enslave Africans for centuries but never took control of their homeland?
-Benjamin Velez
A common theme among several of the texts read over the past two weeks is the portrayal of Indians as juvenile--as a "young people" (Bacon 16). This representation of Native Americans permits, and in many ways necessitates that, Europeans assume a paternalistic role with regards to them. While it is easy to comprehend that such an imagine of the Indian would lead Europeans to develop a sense of obligation to teach them the ways of civilization, it also can be linked to the cruel mistreatment of Native peoples. Paternalism, by necessity, denies the full subjectivity of those to which it is directed. Thus instruction went hand in hand with discipline.
ReplyDeleteIn the writings of Lewis Henry Morgan one sees the less sinister result of this world-view. Native Americans are described as "left behind in the race of progress" (Morgan iv). The Native Americans do not have different customs, laws or ways of organizing, but rather lack them or, in some cases, have not developed them fully. Such statements invite the benevolent European to move them along the path to civilization. It obligates the white man to impart upon his barbarian cousin (or rather "living ancestor") his knowledge--to clothe the naked savage mantle of civilized learning and morality. While the aims may have seemed righteous to the European, the result was hundreds of years of mistreatment for the Indians: families torn apart as children were sent to "Indian schools," community members imprisoned for performing rituals, such as the potlatch, that were criminalized by the state, and more subtle, and in many ways more sinister, assaults in the loss of language, culture and dignity.
The more violent side of paternalism is evident in the writings of Christopher Columbus. His desire to spread the Christian faith also motivated in him a willingness to punish severely. Thus, when several Indians desecrate a Bible, he has them burned alive (Todorov 44). While this extreme violence may seem to be in conflict with a truly "paternal" relationship, I argue that the denial of full subjectivity that such a relationship requires lays the groundwork for gross mistreatment. It is at the heart of Europeans' denial of the importance, even the existence, of uniquely Indian ways of being, just as parents ignore fanciful imaginings of children. This is evident in Columbus' chronicles when, despite knowing that Native Americans view property differently, he still orders that "thieves" have their ears and nose cut off (Todorov 40). To Columbus, Indians that break European customs are naughty children that must be disciplined.
-Crystal Gonzalez
Naming is something that specifically interests me - the way that being able to provide a name for something gives one power over that person or place. One author writing about Nunavit Inuit culture in particular defines names as the cornerstones of culture - "they identify individuals, represent life, [and] express and embody power" (Valerie Alia).
ReplyDeleteThe idea of naming as a source of power over something is an idea that has a very long history. Adam was supposedly the progenitor of all man, and the beginning of history because he was invested with the power to name the plants and animals; he was even given leave to name his wife - Eve, because she was the world's mother. In the Genesis creation story, man has the right to name the animals and his wife because he has power over them; for example, this naming process establishes Adam as the powerful "man in the relationship."
The is the same power-balance relationship that Europeans wished to create in the New World. Because history is written by the victors - and because Native Americans were effectively on the losing end, with their populations at a rapid decline because of conquest, slavery, disease, etc. - Europeans have had the power over the American history books in that they have provided names for indigenous people and for places that were already inhabited and had their own names.
It goes along with the whole "finder's keepers" mentality of European explorers of the time of conquest. Thomas, in Skull Wars, maintains that "the names established an agenda under which the rest of the encounter would be played out(4)." By staking a claim, planting a flag and providing a name for an area or a people, they are sterilized of any ancient past and the situation is reframed so that American Indians can be understood within a European context. Essentially, by providing a new name for indigenous peoples they are denied an existence of their own and given importance only as they are relevant to the European model.
It is not surprising that not long after "contact" Native Americans were identified as an earlier stage in what could be termed "human evolution" (but not yet, since Darwin hasn't written his nominal text on the subject). Subsequent authors would align American Indians with various levels of savagery or barbarism on the great ladder towards civilization. In the 17th and 18th century cult of Romantic Primitivism, Native Americans are framed as our forebears - mostly because of their being named "Noble Savages." Rousseau especially was obsessed with the idea of the Noble savage - a man "unencumbered" by civilization, defined as a person who lacks something. They provided the inspiration for (or at least a source of evidence for) his theory of natural man. Natural man was one who lived in a so-called state of nature before the installment of civilization. Again, Native Americans find themselves renamed - from "los Indios" to barbarians to Noble Savage (or Bloodthirsty savages) and on to the figure of the natural man. It just shows how names can wholly define the types of philosophies that Natives are included in.
Halley Hair
Personal Archaeology
ReplyDeleteI love a book that forces me to reassess my point of view and adjust the knobs accordingly. So it is with Skull Wars, which has made me examine filters that color views long held but never consciously acquired. We all have some less than pretty notions, which like souvenirs lugged back from happy times prove cheap and inappropriate when examined in the light of home. It wasn’t very long ago that I underwent a paradigm shift in my understanding of colonialism under similar circumstances. I had blithely cruised from political refugee immigrant child to Caribbean traveler and connoisseur of the comparative virtues of ex- British, French, Spanish or Dutch Caribbean islands and their luxurious Colonial flavored post-Colonial resorts. Then I read Jamaica Kincaid’s A Small Place about Antigua, my favorite island, and its tourist industry viewed from a native’s point of view, and everything changed forever. I realized as I finished the book that I had spent my life until that day seeing everything through the lens of a post Colonial apologist.
Skull Wars required me to evaluate how and why I view Native Americans, and forced me to do some necessary personal archaeology before I could once again move forward. This stratigraphic examination of my thinking led me to understand why I’ve always felt more attuned to the 18th and 19th centuries than to my own. But to examine my viewpoint and find to my immense dismay that I think like a Brit educated at Rugby under Thomas Arnold with a grand tour under my belt is flat-out scary. How did someone with my catholic interests and liberal outlook been so willing to subscribe to the blindered notion of Mediterranean & European supremacy in all things touching the cultural and intellectual history of our species? Examining myself, I saw a clear and direct link to Rousseau, the Romantic movement, and the many dead white European males who have formed my thinking, consciously or not. My own personal and ancestral history cluttered any possible objectivity. When Moses was rounding up the other Jews to head out of Egypt, my great to the nth grandfather was playing cards with Pharaoh, so we stayed. Over the next millennia, my family were subjected to Greek, Ottoman, French and British rulers, culminating in the early 1950s in Egypt when Nasser toppled the sham monarchy of King Farouk, and we “Europeans” sailed to the New World.
Arriving in the US as a child I immediately forced my parents to buy me a set of pearl handled six shooters, a leather holster with conchas and tassels and a cowboy hat. I wore these in our hotel, where I spent a lot of time learning English from the refrigerator sized TV that spewed endless shows about Davey Crockett (I soon obtained a coonskin cap for watching that more authentically), Jim Bowie, Annie Oakley and all the singing cowboys and girls, Gene Autry, Roy Rogers and Dale Evans. Armed with endless rolls of caps, I played in Central Park with the local children –Manhattan natives, white, Upper East Side private school kids- who were also armed with six shooters. We with guns were the cowboys and those without, the kids we repeatedly killed each afternoon in the playground, were the Indians. I shifted from colonized to colonizer by arming myself with toys and hats, a change that has colored my views about Native Americans and pre-Columbian culture until now.
Hats off, Skull Wars.
Sylvia Calabrese
I feel conflicted in beginning a class on Native American histories by first looking at the European narrative of these histories. While I understand that the European project of colonization and domination has inevitably colored discourse to the point where Native identity in this country is predicated upon Euroamerican definitions (blood quanta, etc.) and where Columbus is still perceived as a founding figure, I feel frustrated in the degree to which European accounts and European understandings are prioritized and centralized.
ReplyDeleteDeloria makes the point in "Anthropologists and Other Friends" that anthropologists didn't visit the reservations to learn anything (he says they don't ever even carry writing tools, because they don't expect to learn anything worth writing down), rather they come only to confirm the theories formulated in their universities. Often, I feel that a strange reversion of this occurs when we look at Native cultures- there is such a conflict of identity in academia, brought about by anthropology's complicity in colonial and imperialist exploitation of Native American and other indigenous people, that now instead of looking at what Native cultures have to say, a lot of time is spent in breaking down the European project, looking at European discourse, and critiquing the history of European-Native American interaction from an overwhelmingly Eurocentric perspective.
That is, rather than coming to the reservation to prove preconceived theories, we are now studying the reservation to break down these same theories. In all this, the Indian remains unheard.
On the other hand, I recognize that my frustration is as much exhaustion from reading dozens of pages of old Classicists trying to rank people and their societies like species of flowers or birds. I see the complexities (and often astounding insights)of Morgan and similar scholars, but I can't help but share Deloria's righteous fury over "ancient" white men telling me what it means to be an Indian.
An interesting aspect of Skull Wars, and one that I'm very grateful for, is its concentration not so much on European studies of Native people, but on its honest examination of the interstices between the European colonial/mythmaking gaze and what little voice Native people had in the interpretation of their own past- from the archaelogical remains studied by anthropologists and archaelogists to more modern instances of tribes and tribal members being active participants in fieldwork.
Francisco Salas
The question of whether or not the remains of the Ancient Kennewickian (which I think is a nice compromise name) should have been reburied is one that cannot be answered easily in legal, ethical, or scientific terms. As I have learned from our readings on this case, there seems to be no solution that all parties would find completely satisfactory. While I agree with many archaeologists that his remains provide a crucial piece of information in the project of fully understanding the past of North America and its earliest inhabitants, the rationale behind scientists' desires in this particular case deserve to be intensely scrutinized. Just as some like James Chatters have imputed less than honorable motives among the Native Americans who fought to have the Ancient Kennewickian reburied without further study, the motives of many opponents of reburial can also be questioned.
ReplyDeleteAs Zimmerman argues, in many cases, inquiry into the the Ancient Kennwickian is informed by a persistent desire among Euro-Americans to uncover a white past for America, thus legitimizing the original conquest and genocide of Native peoples by European invaders. To many, the U.S. Court of Appeals's decision to allow further study of the Ancient Kennewickian went against the intended spirit of the NAGPRA legislation. It represented yet another case of scientists' interpretation of the past trumping Native peoples'. On the other hand, skeletons like the Ancient Kennewickian have the potential to change our long-held conceptions of what exactly it means to be Native American. What is important to understand is that for some Native peoples like the Umatilla, information culled by study of these remains will not change their fundamental understanding of their identity and the identity of their ancestors. The question of whether he is an ancestor of modern Indian people--one that anthropologists like Chatters believe they can answer through science and the Umatilla believe the can answer through their oral histories--demonstrates the extent of different between how many scientists and Native Americans conceive of their histories.
~Laura Schreiber
Based on both the Owsley and Zimmerman readings, I personally believe that the Kennewick Man does not deserve a proper burial and should instead be seen as scientific property. While the Umatilla tribe cites their religious beliefs when arguing the cultural connection between the “Ancient One” and their tribe, they drive a hard bargain when threatening the government that denying the connection is a rejection of their faith. In Zimmerman’s article, the courts most recent opinion on the debate is described as stating that: “archaeological materials are a public heritage”. It goes on to say that scientific evidence overrules the oral tradition defended by the Native American Graves Protection and Repatratriation Act. I do not believe that the courts decision enforces a “White History of America” or disrespects the Ancient One as a human being.
ReplyDeleteI strongly believe that the Kennewick man is nothing but an artifact, a scientific and archaeological treasure. Of course I acknowledge that this Ancient one was part of a culture and represents an important part of Native American ancient history, but their religious arguments are ridiculous. The fact is that while the Umatilla tribe may claim that this man is culturally connected to their ancestors, who have lived there since the “Dawn of time”, there was no Umatilla tribe over 9 thousand years ago and religion or no religion, that is fact. We know from scientific evidence that the continent was still being settled and populated at that time and no Native American tribes existed in their modern incarnations. Scientific artifacts like the Kennewick man should be considered public heritage because it provides clues to the history of this continent. And regardless of whether your ancestors are European or Native to this continent, the fact is we all came from Africa at one point, so ancient human history matters to all of us.
-Benjamin Velez
This from Michelle Hutt...
ReplyDeleteClearly, in this course we begin with a different perspective on the great philosophers like Rousseau and Smith, or Hobbes and Locke. Rather than viewing the world from western history, we are attempting to take nothing for granted and view the world from the new world (which, as we now understand, is a complete misnomer and representative of the European view of the non-western world). In these last few weeks of classes, I was interested in various aspects of the European view of America and its people; but I was particularly fascinated by the representation of America as a woman. Not only was America seen as a woman, but so were “kind Indians”. In the various etchings, cartoons, and paintings we viewed in lecture, these female representations were fertile, young, voluptuous, and attractive women. These sorts of depictions expressed a gentle, naivety that calmed Europeans. Yet, I wonder why this was. Yes, at the time women held little power in Europe on the whole. With the exceptions of monarchs, women could still not own property in most countries. Women could not fight in war. They could not truly fight any sort of battle, having no power. Therefore, this representation of America and of “kind Indians” as women may be better read as a disarming or emasculation of the native populations and of America in its totality.
More importantly, women were not viewed as equals to men. Through these images, Europeans immediately placed themselves as higher and as more powerful than America and “kind Indians”. This position of power that Europe believed it had was made blatant through political cartoons such as the one from class where America (the woman) was surrounded by and being molested by a bunch of European men. Europe saw it fit to treat America and native populations like a woman to be taken and used as needed or desired. This image of the woman (America, “kind Indians”) is problematic and emblematic of the relationship between Europe and America.
--Michelle Hutt
I felt as though Wilson’s argument and example of the Effigy Mounds is refreshing and intriguing. It is a reminder that social complexity does not necessarily equal progress. Gordon Childe created “qualifications” for being labeled a civilization or not and I have always thought this idea is a little absurd. He looks at a society and asks “Do they have full time specialization of labor?’ No? Okay they are less superior and “below” this other society who does have this certain characteristic. Why do we feel the need rank societies? Who are we to say that certain societies are above another based on modern standards? Maybe certain societies simply wanted to do things differently. It does not need to be labeled as moving backward or forward.
ReplyDeleteI believe Wilson does a fine job of explaining his claims through the Effigy Mounds. He presents this society who has “no evidence of social violence or class structure; it largely refused the use of metal; and it apparently did all things consciously and by choice” (Wilson 91) They were presented with the progressive way of life yet chose to do things their own way. They “reverted” back to hunting and gathering avoiding the idea of necessary progression. I love how Wilson uses the description of “reverting” in quotes because he does not accept the idea. These people are not “reverting.” He refuses to place the Effigy Mounds in the recently anthropologically popular idea of “reversion.” They are simply choosing a different way of life than many of the cultures around them. He looks at the step toward “reversion” as “as victory against the emergence of higher forms of separation and hierarchy” (Wilson 90). I would like to think that because of the furtherance of knowledge, we would no longer look at this lack of progression as a savage thing, yet when applied to our lives today, I still clearly see a look-down upon someone refusing to keep up with the steady line of progression. If there is a college student on campus without a cell phone I’m sure he or she is haggled relentlessly. It is expected for everyone to have the latest technology, and if one refuses, they are labeled as “weird” or “anti-social.” Not quite on the level as “savage” but it is the same basic idea.
What was especially interesting to me was the idea that these Mounds are never really studied because of their refusal to accept the natural progression. When Wilson first stated this as his theory for the fact that the Effigy Mounds rarely being studied, I thought he was pushing it and maybe trying to apply something that does not really apply. But after more contemplation, the same was true for the Native Americans. They were labeled as “savage” and thus their culture and ways of life were not worth recognizing.
Christina Henderson
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn A Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau develops a confining paradigm of the natural and the unnatural, the higher and the lower, and warns of inequalities that, uncontested, will rise up and damage society as it is known. In this course, we look to disband, or at the very least, disrupt, that paradigm that locks ranking into our political and economic culture. Rousseau looked to “innocence” as a trait by which to alleviate groups of labels defining them as barbaric, for example, or responsible for “unholy” ways of life. This, in no way, can be considered enough. As a class, it is our responsibility to unlock the notion of the “origin,” for culture itself is not, and has never been static or unchanging.
ReplyDeleteTrying to define the “encounter” as an encounter is problematic in and of itself. On one hand, as modern anthropologists we try to grant Native Americans as much agency as possible, sure to understand their role in history as strongly as we understand the European. Yet the “encounter” implies an equal role for both sides, which cannot be accurately said. This would only be true if Native American and Europeans alike departed from their respective lands and “met” in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean: a highly unlikely event. Colonization was an attack on Native American culture, economy, and politics in both literal and theoretical ways and should be treated as such.
If we are to talk about nature, as Rousseau does, we must focus on the European desire for both starting points and ending points: a linear history. Is it possible to think of all humanity as simultaneously natural and unnatural? Evolution, in a sense, is unnatural. It depends on mistakes, genetic mutations, to propel the world forward. Unfortunately, instead of looking towards biology for answers, European society has imposed itself onto Native American life in a profoundly philosophical way. As academics, the question arises of how best to handle the dangerous of discourse.
Perri Goldstein
The project of colonizing the New World was at first disorganized because of the manner in which the two continents were discovered. There was, however, an impulse to do several things which became official policy: conquer the land, exploit its resources (whether material or human), and christianize its population. Whether or not these policies worked well with the philosophies of the time was another matter. While some philosophers were prepared to recognize the inhabitants of the Americas as human (as was the Catholic church), this had little bearing on the actions of the conquistadores and viceroys of the newly conquered territory. These men considered the natives to be either less than human or simply closer to nature and therefore of lower intelligence and capabilities. (They were also heathens, which didn't help their case much either). The invading Spanish did not so much feel the “white man's burden” as much as they felt the urge to steal all the could and destroy that which they did not understand, culture included.
ReplyDeleteThe appearance of these natives in the European imagination no doubt partially inspired many of the writings of the period on the natural state of man—whether it was peaceful or anarchic. Both scenarios were identified in the Americas in abundance, from the peaceful Arawaks to the cannibalistic Caribs. Both scenarios do injustice to the people they seem to describe; in addition, the very task of philosophizing about man in a state of nature seems to the imply a linear understanding of progress as outlined by Lewis Henry Morgan, which is a damaging and ultimately dangerous way to conceive of the world since it can be used to justify the destruction of another, “inferior” society, which is what happened on a large scale in the Americas.
Rachel Wagner
rw2264
The European encounter of the New World is an event—shrouded in dual shades of meaning—whose repercussions were nevertheless astronomical for those on both sides of the Atlantic. The view of Native Americans worldwide would be forever shaped by the initial accounts presented to Europe by the continent’s first explorers: Erik Thorvaldsson, Christopher Columbus, John Cabot, Amerigo Vespucci, Hernan Cortes, Giovanni da Verrazzano, Cabeza de Vaca, Hernando de Soto, and Francisco Coronado to name a few. The Western thinking of these men shaped the way the world at large would understand and treat Native Americans for centuries to come. European philosophers of the day, in particular, were largely influenced by these explorers’ often skewed worldviews which in turn had a great impact on Europeans’ superior self-perception.
ReplyDeleteWhile my previous experience with the work of Locke, Hobbes, and Rosseau in Contemporary Western Civilization—although in no way majorly focusing on the biased ideas denounced in our discussion—significantly brought up similar themes; in my class’ treatment of Western-thinking we used Native Americans as a way to explain Rousseau’s idea behind man in the state of nature as well as his concept of the social contract (by their apparent non-engagement with it). In addition, however, my particular section brought in the works of Frantz Fanon—which I do not believe is standard, but nevertheless proves more progressive and enlightening for our own purposes of evaluating the project of European colonization.
Fanon was a great French anti-colonial thinker whose writings focused on the plight of colonized Africans in their struggle for liberation, yet his concepts can certainly be applied to the situation of the colonization of the Americas as well. He seems to directly speak to the Western philosophers’ reductionist definition of the New World by what it apparently ‘lacked’: letters, property, religion, leaders, language and even clothes. This notion brings up the important discussion of alterity. Todorov writes of such denial of alterity as the Europeans’ “failure to recognize the Indians and refusal to admit them as a subject having the same rights as oneself but different” (Todorov 49). In doing so, the Europeans view the complex elements that contribute to Native Americans’ social identity as nonexistent instead of merely different. Fanon similarly bemoans the manifestation of this situation in respect to African Americans: “The Negro of the Antilles will be proportionally whiter—that is, he will come closer to being a real human being—in direct ratio to his mastery of the French language.” Todorov writes of a progression towards a more radical notion of alterity: “By gradual changes, Columbus will shift from assimilationism, which implied an equality of principle, to an ideology of enslavement, and hence to the assertion of the Indians’ inferiority” (Todorov 46). Fanon echoes this sentiment, denouncing the colonists’ characterization of African natives as “absolute evil” and even “[enemies] of values”—incapable of being taught Western ethics and therefore necessarily savage and dangerous when not enslaved. It is unfortunate that even two hundred years after Rousseau wrote both the “Discourse on Inequality” and the “Social Contract” thinkers such as Fanon and Todorov still felt the need to so staunchly challenge Western egocentrism against the potential of native peoples, yet their call for the recognition of the basic human dignities of Africans and Native Americans respectively in the face of such outdated notions of European colonization and subjugation is commendable in its own right.
-Jenny Johnson