Honors section discussion question for 9/20
Read the online readings on American Indians, especially the Axtell article on "white Indians," and answer the following questions: Did the "white Indians" make the right decision? Would you make the same one? What were the major pros and cons? Would the "white Indians" white relatives have been justified in trying to get captives back, or should have let their lost love ones live as Indians in peace?
Also, please note: We will conduct this discussion entirely online, as I will be driving to Minnesota for my father-in-law's funeral and unable to hold our usual discussion meeting this Thursday. Lecture has NOT been cancelled, and neither have the other sections. The honors students lucked out, or something.
Also, please note: We will conduct this discussion entirely online, as I will be driving to Minnesota for my father-in-law's funeral and unable to hold our usual discussion meeting this Thursday. Lecture has NOT been cancelled, and neither have the other sections. The honors students lucked out, or something.
posted by Jeff Pasley at 12:05 PM
9 Comments:
I believe the white Indians made the right decision because if they felt like the Indian lifestyle was their preferred way of living, then I believe it is their choice to choose how they live. If I had been a captive and learned the Indian way of life and realized that I’d rather live life as an Indian, I would have made the same choice and accepted their customs. I believe the English people had a choice, and if they chose adapt to their culture, then that should be acceptable. The English people could then perhaps find a greater happiness within a different culture and lifestyle. They could also act as mediators to help relieve tension between the Indians and the English. However, once joining the Indian lifestyle, they’d be seen as barbarians; they’d lose wealth, supplies, power, and army. Yet again, I believe that they were aware of this decision, and have the right to choose their own lifestyle. On that same note, I also see no justification in white relatives trying to get white Indian captives back; I understand they thought they were trying to save them but I believe in the white Indian’s choice and if they choose to leave their family and their old culture, I believe they’re entitled to that decision.
I agree with raechel. To be cliche, "To each his own". Living with either the Indians or English should be a personal decision, depending on which lifestyle you were most comfortable in. Unfortunately, living according to one's personal preferences often has consequences in which others are hurt. The loved ones of the "white indians" would be hurt either way. I believe it would be justifiable if the English attempted to bring their white relatives back, but if the person truly wished to live as an Indian, no matter how hard it would be to let them go, the English would have to accept that. Rather than force a lifestyle on someone, I would personally prefer that the person was happy. However, we may all be answering differently if we were in the same position.
If the "white indians" were allowed to remain as such living in peace with their Indian families, certain aspects of their arrangement would prove mutually beneficial to the English and the American Indians. the "white indians' could act as translators of both culture and language to both sides, and be intermediaries in times of war and conflict. Adversely, the "white indians" may suffer identity crises as they bounce between and adapt to two different cultures, societal norms, and loved ones. All things considered, I do believe that, if they so chose, and were of age to choose, the "white indians" should be allowed to live in peace with either culture they choose.
I can’t provide much disagreement either. Clearly the “white Indians”, who had experienced life in both cultures, were in a prime position to make sound personal choice about which lifestyle they preferred. It is a testament to the arrogance of the English that they didn’t even conceive of this as a possibility, but it does seem logical that if two cultures are exposed to each other, members of one cultural might find the other to be more suitable to them. What is really surprising is that there is no instances (or at least documentation) of an Indian voluntarily assimilating into the English culture. I think this speaks more to the contrasting nature of the two cultures. It is much easier for an individual living in a very repressive culture (i.e. English colonial women) to be adjust and be happy a culture in which they can be more free, rather than an individual who is accustomed to a certain degree of freedom to live in a culture where they are repressed. Also contributing to the discrepancy is the unwillingness of the English to accept natives into their culture, versus the proven willingness of the Indians (for the most part) to allow English to be functioning members of their society. In that sense the English seemed to have “gotten what they deserved” for their arrogance.
I believe that if the "white indians" of the colonial period had experienced life within both European and Native American culture and willingly chose to live out the rest of their lives as Indians, they should have all the power in the world to do so. In terms of white relatives trying to get the captives back, I believe European settlers should try and retrieve them if they are young children. If they are teenagers or older and willingly accept the culture and identity of the Indians, they should be let alone to choose their lifestyle. However, I can see how white settlers would be determined to get their loved ones back into their villages and back into English or European culture. As for me, if I were living in an oppressive English society with many social constraints, choosing the more independent, nature-centered lifestyle sounds like a great option. It'd be a way to get away from constant warfare, violence, social inequality, racism, etc.
Considering the general lifestyle ideals that the Indians had that we heard about in lecture and the readings, I think the white captives were completely justified and correct in choosing to stay with the Indians. The English women would find the culture much more freeing, and easy to adjust to. And when the captives were taken back by Englishmen, “saved” or rescued, it would be understandable for the white Indians to want to go back, stealing away to go back to their new Indian families. If you live that well, you are bound to make new relationships and gain new morals, making it almost impossible to go back to English civilization.
I definitely think that I would make the same decision that the other women did [if all of the sources and descriptions are fairly accurate]. Women had so much more say and freedom in the Indian community than they did in the strict English lifestyle, so it is not a surprise that they made the choice to stay.
I think to some extent, however, that the relatives are justified in attempting to get the captives back. They are trying to do what they think is best for their loved ones, and even though the captives may have severed ties from their old families, the feeling of indifference was probably not reciprocal—although I do think that after a few failed attempts at rescue, the relatives should let the white Indians do what they will, let them be.
I agree with everyone so far the the "white indians" were educated enough to make a smart decision. The pros of the indian life would be the freedom for women, not having to deal with a class seperated society, and being able to live in a culture that for many people seems less stressful. Yet i could not imagin going from English life, where things such as comfortable housing, an established government, and public saftey are taken for granted, to the indian culture which seems so primative.
I think it is difficult to gauge whether the white Indian made the right decision because we don’t know what each person’s personal situation was. If they had an unstable or unhealthy life with their biological family, perhaps living as a white Indian was better. Perhaps the freedoms offered by the Indians meant more to some whites than others. I think that in any situation the “right” decision is whatever is the best for the person in question. I believe that the white Indians made the right decision; Indian society had a lot to offer women and other oppressed sections of the white population.
I have an incredible family so it is very difficult for me to even contemplate making this decision. I think I would do as Sean Hornbeck did and do whatever kept my captors the happiest.
The major cons of the situation would be that you would have the ever-looming fear of attack from your own people: the whites! In addition, you would be used to more sophisticated technology (primarily in the war areas) so switching to more basic tools would be con. Also, you might not be with your family.
The biggest pro would be civil liberties for women. If I were a woman in that age and had the option to be a white Indian or return to my family, I would seriously have to consider the fact that I would have more freedom, liberties, social equality, respect, and power (because it seems that the men were sometimes mere mouthpieces for the women in Iroquois tribes).
I think that any devoted family member would go back for their loved one.
These are nicely-written comments, but could someone bring up any specific examples from the reading. Also thanks to Steph for bringing up the analogy to the Shawn Hornbeck case. That is much closer to how these captivity situations would have been seen at the time than some voluntary lifestyle choice.
ead the online readings on American Indians, especially the Axtell article on "white Indians," and answer the following questions: Did the "white Indians" make the right decision? Would you make the same one? What were the major pros and cons? Would the "white Indians" white relatives have been justified in trying to get captives back, or should have let their lost love ones live as Indians in peace?
The problem wasn't so much whether the "white Indians" made the right decision or not, the problem was mostly the fact that they weren't able to make a decision. The groups of captives that we are talking about, namely women, would have, most likely, chosen an Indian lifestyle over a white lifestyle if they were given the pros and cons of the situation. However, they weren't given that opportunity, and,as such, it did not agree with American beliefs to hold them captive like that.
As an adult male, I probably would not have been given that opportunity to be adopted into the clan, except in the strictly metaphorical sense. I do see how there are pros and cons. Life became much simpler once you acclimated to the Indian society. All of the extra trappings that come along with technology and "civilization" also cause additional responsibilities. One would have been free of those responsibilities once they acclimated to the Indian way of life. The women would have also enjoyed an unprecedented level of civil liberties. The cons were many also. A seasonally transitory life, less technology, away from family, a new country, etc.
I think that they was the "white Indians"'s relatives treated them could be used by any competent novel writer as an excellent way to foreshadow the actions of the civil war. These seem to focus around the same issue, the fact that you don't have to be a part of something unless you desire to be a part of it. This, apparently, is a central theme through the Civil War.
Another point to mention, white leaders knew that it would be difficult to get captives back -- and even harder to keep them. Both Colden and Franklin realized that the greatest struggle of recapturing your family members was to make sure they returned to you. The white leaders were very jealous of the fact that Indians had such developed powers of education. One group of Shawnee Indians even admonished the English to take care of their captives, or they would surely return. That is an indication to the fact that it was wrong for white families to try to recapture the "white Indians".
Post a Comment
<< Home