Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:20 am Post subject: thursday(2/180 night reading
ooh wow it was fun to see Pocahontas pop up in this reading, the piece about john smith and his capture was interesting. i mentioned last night the phrase "history is written by the victors," this is a good example of how the historian's interpenetration leads to mass perception later on. page says that they weren't trying to kill him but quite the opposite they were performing a ceremony to accept him into a high ranking role in society. i also think the whole reality about Pocahontas being ten years old and settlers being "enticed" by her naked cartwheels is pretty gross/tragic and almost wish that the history was more like the Disney movie.
i found the Iroquois really interesting. it is a compelling concept to even consider taking your enemy into your ranks, i feel like in modern times such behavior would be frowned upon. i guess the English frowned upon most things they did then also.
i like the Hiawatha story and i wonder when it originated. it is a good example of how stories and beliefs often transcend cultural and geographical boundaries. it is a pretty radical idea that he brings back to people though, to love your enemy and whatnot. we still have a hard time buying that one and i wonder if anyone has any idea about why this seemingly counter-intuitive idea resurfaces throughout so many cultures?
So this chapter was a little difficult to follow because it was so full of action- very different from the evidence analyses that we've been reading up to now. It was really interesting (and horrifying) to see the cycles of violence- Native Americans against each other, Europeans using Native Americans against each other, Native Americans using Europeans against each other, and then the direct combat between Europeans and Native Americans. This reading did a great job showing how disease and warfare worked together in the decline in Native American population. Not a great thing that happened, but seeing the relationship between the two gave me a better picture of what happened.
Something interesting that I saw was on page 171. "the Jesuits saw that once the Indians were hooked on European trade goods, they would be more easily converted." This kind of reminds me of the alliances, or friendliness, that some Native American groups formed through trade. Like the Native Americans, it seems like the Jesuits used this as a method to gain trust and also get what they want. This really showed that even though Native Americans and Europeans had different ideas and goals, they used the same methods to accomplish them. (another example is the one I mentioned above, where the europeans used the NAs against each other and vice versa.) Wow.
I would like to add to Max's question. Not only does this idea of loving your enemy show up across culture, but virgin birth shows up too (the Conquistadors actually showed up during an Aztec celebration of a God who was born of a virgin). Any ideas?
I feel as though this reading, especially the Pocahontas really gave me some insight into what we were saying earlier today, about Page being annoyingly neutral in his story/ history telling. He labels Pocahontas the peacekeeper, similar to the role we see in the movie, different from the pocahontas we have learned about from you maybe? This makes me wonder three things, 1) whether we have been taught to think that the native americans were the good guys and that they were all into nature and they were brutaly removed from their land is really true or whether there was truly some more neutrality to the fight, or 2) that Page in some way sympathizes with the Europeans, maybe understanding something we dont, or 3) that he is just trying to present with all of the facts possible, remaining as neutral as possible, making me lose a bit more respect for him in his lack of opinion.
As for the content itself, again, we see the cultural relations and mingling. Powhatan's plan is to in his view "civilize" the Europeans, he wants to take John under his command, for he feels a similar way to the Europeans, maybe just a more productive version of it? Powhatans empire is the equivalent of the European empires back across the Atlantic, maybe not in size, but in relevance. There is the willingness and idea of absorbing another culture into one's own that we do not really ever see in European history. The culture of the american indians is looked at through deceitful eyes, and this deceit kinda clouded the vision of the Europeans, thinking that the native americans always had an alterior motive, as they did. How can one culture successfully absord another without destorying one in the process??
I thought this reading was very interesting although I am not sure I agree with some of the things that Page wrote. When I think of Native Americans in general I think of a chief ruling or guiding over just his own tribe. So I found it very interesting that a Native American named Powhatan ruled over thirty other chiefs. When I think of a ruler like that I always think about European Kings who sometimes brutally rule over their people and lands they have conquered. But I guess it was a good idea for the tribes Powhatan ruled over because they were a lot stronger all together and could therefore fight more effectively against the Europeans. At first it sounds like Powhatan, the chiefs under him and the priests are just rulers because they do the work any other man in the tribe does but then on the next page, Page, mentions that when a man killed a deer he would have to kill a few more for the chiefs and took produce and other things from them. He did not share anything he got with anyone else except his family and bodyguards. In some ways, he is like a European king or a dictator because they exploit their people by taking food that they grow themselves just for them so they never have too little food. I guess no matter what society people are in, if someone is in a position of power they will most likely exploit it in some way to varying degrees. I thought the Iroquois Confederation was also a very amazing idea to combat and hold off the Europeans as long as they could. It seemed like, because they were so peaceful within the five nations, and were among the most feared warriors that they fared the best compared to a lot of other Native American tribes.
I am really confused know about the story of Pocahontas. I thought we said there was no one by that name living there and that she did not save him from death in any way. Maybe this is another theory or story or maybe it is true? I feel like the story of Pocahontas even as he wrote it in this book is a little far fetched.
Why do you think that people usually force their ideas and religions on people? Is it because people are afraid of people who are different then them or do they really believe they are saving their souls?
Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 7:34 am Post subject: vdjksh that stands for Van duke jon king sword hand
Since I posted on this yesterday im just gonna answer some questions tonight!!
So To answer Gigi’s question I think that people force and push their ideas and religions on other people because they either truly believe that it will help the person they are forcing the idea upon or they truly believe that it is what they must do. Like some evangelical Christians ( I think ) are trying to “save” other people. It’s like they are trying to turn as many people as possible. And this often seems like they are trying to make everyone’s life horrible to many of us silly liberals but I think in their mind it truly seems like the best thing to do or the only thing. They belive that if they don’t they will die and all their kids will die. Im not really sure about that though. To connect it to the Europeans I think when they cam over to the Americas they planned settling new land and having a little more freedom than in Britain and possible a new religon? So maybe they felt like they had something great and wanted to share it with others. It also makes peace maybe if everyone is beliving and fightijng for the same thing. So maybe they were all just trying to make peace……
Howdy!
I totally agree that it was fun that Pocahontas showed up in the reading. I thought that it was interesting that Page believes that she had such an influential role. In the reading he says that “Her death-particularly at so young an age, early twenties-dashed any hopes of continuing cooperating in Virginia” (pg 160). This seems a very drastic statement. Was she really so important to these people that she affected peace from over an ocean? Was her death really the death of European-Native American cooperation? That seems very extreme to me.
For me the Great League of Peace and Power was the most interesting. Fifty chiefs and five nations came together to share the “Words of Condolence” and attempt peace. This was really intense for me. I could just picture them all coming together and the mixing of cultures and sharing of ideas that would have taken place. How incredible would it be to have something like that today?
To answer Gigi’s question, everyone thinks they have the right answers. The Europeans believed the Natives to be misguided. They truly believed that their religion was the only true religion and everything else was just fallacy. Also, by forcing the Natives to assimilate, they can bring them under European control. If the Europeans managed to convert Native Americans that would mean convincing them that everything that they had understood to be true about the world was wrong. That is a pretty hard thing to do. But if they did manage it, the Natives would be apt to believe whatever the Europeans told them for it was the Europeans that had “shown them the light.
I found tonights reading pretty interesting. I defiantly agree with Max that this reading is a good example of history being written by the winners and i too am disappointed by the "true" story. It also seems that any story we hear is romanticized before it gets to us. I wonder why the story of Pocahontas was immortalized even before it reached Disney. How can one predict what will be remembered.
(Sorry this post is gonna be a little disjointed.)
I was very surprised by the way that the Natives and Europeans often interacted. The Natives would adopt people into their group and that Europeans would even become part of the culture. I guess they were not as separated and against each other as I thought.
One quote that out to me was on page 158 "For every deer a hunter might kill and use for his own purposes, he would need to kill several others for payment to the chiefs." It surprised me that the Natives essentially had taxes. I would have thought that that was only in Europe and perhaps far east.
Celina I also noticed that Virgin birth thing although i don't have an answer for you i also thought it was crazy. the most strange ideas appear between cultures like that such as the flooding from earlier and what have you. Why are they these random ideas that are so specific? are they embedded in people somehow? If every one in the world was just like me i doubt i would have come up with that.
Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 8:27 am Post subject: hihihi
This reading held a few surprising facts for me. For example, reading that Powhatan was generous and giving to the colonists because he planned on making John Smith another chief of his, adding an interesting twist to what I had previously thought. Page also brings up a point about the Powhatan people finding the buying of land “bewildering” which I thought was interesting because in class we have criticized that idea before. Another small thing I was interested in was how Deganawidah, the peacemaker, was born of a virgin (a story? Regardless its an interesting connection to Christianity). Out of curiousity: what do others think of this connection? The Five Nations/Iroquois Confederation was also quite impressively large and well sorted out. I was intrigued by how the Iroquois where right in the way of the major trade routes, clearly putting them in a large position of power.
I found it interesting how in “Powhatan’s empire, only he, his priests, and lesser chiefs would expect to enjoy an afterlife (157)” And I was curious how this could be a motivator or as something positive to represent to the people (in terms of remaining in power/proving control over the people). Initially I thought that this could be a deterrent for his followers because they would just see no possibility for advancement or safety in their afterlife future, but now I think the idea creates a powerful image worth following. _________________ -wdaube
I'm getting more and more frustrated with Page throughout this book. I feel like he never really answers some of my questions. Or like, he'll say something and I'll write "why?" in the margins and then it's never really explained. For example, on page 159 Page said, "Without what appeared to be straightforward generosity on the part of Powhatan's people, the ill-equipped and, it seems, malingering Jamestown colonists would almost surely have perished before their first year in Virginia was out." I want to know why this is true, but Page never really explained it. Either that or I missed it. Anyone wanna help? Also, I was curious as to what Powhatan's plan for the colonists was. At the bottom of page 159, Page mentions this "plan," but that was it..
A quote I found pretty interesting was on page 158. Page said, "Here, it seems, there was an exploitative attitude to such resources [deer], rather than what we think of as a conservationist's ethic enforced by fear of retribution from the animal spirits." I don't have anything super insightful to say about this quote, but I just liked it... Ha.
The whole religious thing was weird to me, too. I feel like every time I hear about this stuff I always find it weird... anything that has to do with forced religion. Probably just because I'm not at all religious and know very little about it, but I find it completely absurd to try and force a certain belief on a people. I do think it has something to do with fear of the unknown, in a way. I think the Europeans were the kind of people who had an extremely narrow view on things and thought that they did things the right way and everything else was wrong. I was glad to read that the Native Americans had a "lack of interest" in the school that the Europeans wanted to build to teach their religion, I just wish they had been more persistent in that.
One last thing that I was thinking about when I was reading this, and I know this may seem like... totally ridiculous to some people, but... Does anyone feel like the Native Americans might have fucked themselves over by using violence sometimes? Do you think that maybe if they hadn't fought back that maybe the Europeans wouldn't have gotten pissed off AGAIN and end up killing them off and converting the left overs? I don't know if that makes any sense, but yeeeah...
I thought it was very interesting the way the Chief Powhatan came into power, and governed his nations. I never knew that Native Americans tribes or nations operated in this way. Although it was probably just my preconditioning to believe they are all peaceful, nature lovers that prevented me from ever thinking that. Also I was curious as to why he was hostile to other native American tribes, but not to the settlers. Another thing I found interesting was when it said “They were wracked by disease and especially hunger in this peiod they called the “starving time.” Smith would later write of several instances of cannibalism.” So although Smith’s account probably contained some exaggeration, it is interesting to me that basically every chapter Page tells us of another instance of piece of evidence that points to the Native American’s being more or equally civilized as the Europeans. I liked how Page tells us how all the stereotypes and stories etc, are wrong, like the Pocahantas story, but I find myself getting frustrated because I feel like he doesn’t really say anything other than how the story was wrong and what really happened. Maybe he doesn’t need to. Maybe I am just frustrated because “un-biased” history isn’t as entertaining as biased history. Oh well.
-Reading the "real" story of Pocahontas was kind of refreshing because when i was in middle school my brother told me that in the "real" Pocahontas story she's 13 and they forced her to marry and she was raped and many horrible things happened and disney is a horrible group of horrible people. Although I believed that the disney story couldn't be all true, I didnt want to beleive the rest, mostly because half of the words that come out of his mouth are made up, but also because i didn't want to believe I had been lied to by Disney.
-I was wondering about what the word "wife" actually meant for Native Americans. Because here it means marriage, living together and usually children, but for Powhatan it seemed to mean babby mama. I was wondering if this was just a special case for him, or if it usually just meant pregnant woman for theese tribes.
-At the very beginning of the chapter it talked about how only chiefs get to have an afterlife after they die. I was wondering what they thought happened after death for other people, nothing? something still like the afterlife just not as good? Heaven/hell ideas?
I was interested in the Pocahontas story too...I can't remember who, but someone asked about her name. I tried to look it up and a few places say her real name was Matoaka, but she was called Pocahontas as a nickname. Anyway... There were a few things that were strange with the story. First I thought that the part about John Smith writing about the guy killing and salting his wife was kind of funny...He wrote "Now, whether she was better roasted, boiled, are carbonadoed, I know not; but of such a dish as powdered wife I never heard," (159). That combined with his multiple stories of young women flinging themselves on him to save his life make him sound kind of like a lunatic. Another thing I thought was odd was where Page said how Pocahontas's death made people lose hope about cooperation. He said while she was still in America she was like a peace maker, trying to clear things up between the Native Americans and Europeans. What could she have done to continue that while she was in Europe? Probably not much...it's not like she could call them on the phone and tell everyone to play nice. It was strange that Page mentioned her death as what ruined everyone's hopes, and not her being taken away to another continent.
My question...Towards the beginning it said the Europeans couldn't believe the Native Americans were being genuinely nice, and thought they had other motives. Do you think things would have happened differently if the Europeans had stopped being so suspicious and taken a chance with the Native Americans?
Ok so I really love when I learn this kind of stuff in history. The kinds of events that we learn about when we are little, but then find out later on that what we thought was true is actually completely made up. I think its great to re-learn things and it makes us realize what things were really like. However stories like this always leave me wondering what else I don’t “really” know.
Anyways, I thought Gina brought up a good point with the whole Columbian cuties thing… I thought what she said at the end of her post. “Do you think that maybe if they hadn't fought back that maybe the Europeans wouldn't have gotten pissed off AGAIN and end up killing them off and converting the left overs?” was really interesting. I think that converting would have happened either way. Maybe not in the same exact manner but the Europeans definitely would have tried to force their religion on the natives. As for the violence, I think their fighting back did not help their cause, however I don’t think I would go as far as it completely screwed them over. I think that the Europeans would have still acted a little violently at some points but, yes, the Native Americans fighting back just gave them one more reason. I do believe that some of the genocide was not cause out of straight hatred. I think the moving of the Native Americans was more out of, “we want this land” instead of, “we hate you and we’re just gonna move you for fun.”
I also think a touched on a little of what Gigi was asking. I think that people do force their religious beliefs on others throughout history. I think this happens because people think that their ways are the “right” ways and that they should tell other people about them and, sometimes, force others to think the same way.
Ok, here is my question: Is religion the only thing that people force on natives? Why/why not?
I think that beetween the agressive British and constant plague, the Powhatnan groups realy did not stand a chance regardless of weather they chose violence or not.
This chapter does a good job of showing us the politics and customs of the Indians that we are studying, which was cool. It was nice to be able to read about Powhatan's monarchy in detail, or the five nations.
In this reading we learned that when Europeans introduced new technologies that the Indians could not reproduce into their culture, it replaced much of the Indians self reliance, and caused violence between tribes. Are there any parallels in the modern world to this?
Happy Friday! Woohoo…
Haha anyway, I actually enjoyed this reading, which I’m surprised about, because I didn’t think I was going to, and I feel like a couple of people didn’t but…whatever!
I agree with Peter about being surprised about the way the NA and Europeans interacted. I hadn’t ever really heard about the NAs taking captives and either adopting them or killing them. It was really interesting to learn about how if a family member had been lost to war or epidemic disease, then the adopted member would replace them. Then emotionally unstable woman in the family would demand that warriors go back and bring back a replacement for a lost loved one. It sucks for whoever would be captured, because after being taken and having to be put through a day of torture, the family might decide that they don’t want the captive anymore, and that they be executed. So after going through the mental and physical aspects of being kidnapped, then they might be killed because they didn’t fit well enough with the NAs. That sucks. I've never heard of anything like this 'ritual' before.
Going back to the beginning of the chapter, I thought the part that talked about Powhatan’s political structure was really interesting. The way their status pyramid worked is really fascinating. Even though Powhatan was in charge, he and other chiefs would partake in doing chores just like everyone else when they weren’t participating in affairs of state or ceremony.
My question:: Can you think of modern day situations where the person in charge also participates in “chores”?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
