Sunday, February 8, 2009

Mary Rowlandson (1636-1711): “A Narrative of the Captivity and Restoration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson”

By Yehoshua

In this piece Rowlandson portrays her captivity among the Native American’s during King Philip’s War, begun by the Native Americans as a protestation against English brutality and apathy regarding their culture and way of life.

Rowlandson’s faith and naivety are quite striking. First, she fails to realize the motives of the Native Americans, portraying them simply as brutal, animalistic creatures with scant morals or intellectual insight. She never reflects upon the possible wrong which the English have perpetrated against the Native Americans — the powerful uprooting of the Native American culture, their loss of home and resources, their pervasive illness, their economic disadvantage. She never contemplates the fact that her destroyed home, the English’s destroyed cities, were once the free domain of the Native Americans. She considers the starvation, the immorality, the ever-present fear of rape, the brutality of the Native Americans, instead of these very same conditions that the English colonizers imposed upon the former. I am not defending the Native Americans — but revealing the contemporary reality of their way of life.

Second, Rowlandson attributes every incident that occurs to her as manifestations of God’s every-present supervision and omniscience.
When the English army with new supplies were sent forth to pursue the enemy, and they understanding it, fled before them till they came to Banquaug river, where they forthwith went over safely; that that river should be impassable to the English. I can but admire to see the wonderful providence of God in preserving the heathen for further affliction to our poor country (261),
she says. Yet, too, “Another thing that I would observe is the strange providence of God, in turning things about when the Indians was at the highest, and the English at the lowest” (262). Further, “Though many times [the Native Americans] would eat that, that a hog or a dog would hardly touch; yet by that God strengthened them to be a scourge to His people” (262). The arrival of the English army is God’s salvation; their delay is God’s reprisal. Her travails are evidence of God’s punishment; her recovery is evidence of His reward. The Native American’s savageness is God’s reprimand of her and castigation of the iniquity of the English, while an opportunity to demonstrate His power. Her faith is Rowlandson’s contradiction; for her, there is seemingly no agency possible for people, for all is in God’s hands.

12 comments:

  1. I found Yeshoshua’s take on Mary Rowlandson quite insightful, although I did wonder about his comment that Mary did not realize how badly the colonists had treated the natives. Women at that time had no stature. Their duties were limited to “wifely” ones, so it’s not like Mary’s husband would have sat her down and discussed the situation with her.

    I marveled at the Mary’s arc during the time of her capture. Initially, she was (understandably) terrified at all times. She feared the natives as you might fear wild animals. She even refers to them as “those black creatures in the night…” She never knew what was coming. Then, little by little, she began to see some of her captors as human. She talks about some of the natives giving her food and letting her sleep in their teepees in front of the fire. They even began to pay her for making articles of clothing for them. One time she made a shirt for a native and got annoyed when he would not pay her. Another time a native threatened to kill her, and she referred to him as a “rude fellow.” Her fear seemed to be abating as time went on. She was learning how to cope, and the reason she was able to do this was her tremendous faith in God. She drew her faith around her like a cloak on a chilly night. She makes numerous scripture references throughout the narrative, about how she knew as long as she held on and believed in God, He would save her; and she was right. It makes me wonder: how do some people deal with crisis situations by being strong and maintaining their composure, while others just shut down and end up in a fetal position?

    Mindy Pigue

    ReplyDelete
  2. In "The Captivity and Restoration of Ms. Mary Rowdlandson", it was obvious to me that with each "remove" (as she called it), she unwillingly stopped talking about the Indians as "them", and at the "seventh remove" she referred to the group as "we". After the trauma of being taken and subdued by what appeared to her as "beasts", she began noticing identifiable human traits. It is my opinion that through her captivity it was her spirit, and not her status, what was restored. Suddenly her struggle for survival was mirrored by the Indians', and though she cannot condone their actions nor she fully understand why they would harm her version of God's people, by the ninth remove she spoke of a "sorry Indian", whom she knitted a shirt for.
    Diana Sanchez

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mrs. Rowlandson’s narrative conveyed her personal relationship with God, and her submission to His word. The whole narrative is embedded with references to the Bible. In fact, without her Bible, we would have all read a different narrative.
    The narrative was written in first person so we were only reading about her experiences and feelings during her captivity. During the reading I tried to put myself in the perspective of the Natives, but this was extremely difficult and there were very few places in the text where we may observe how they felt, or, what were their motives.
    Furthermore, from my reading, it appears that the Natives had planned to capture her and keep her alive to use her as a bargaining chip. As I read on, from the first remove onward, I couldn’t help to sense that the Natives thought that she was going to provide some type of leverage or pardon for them when their backs were against the wall. We read about this towards the end, when the Natives were trying to figure out how much they could get for her. She was like an object of trade. This was a great portrayal of the Natives culture. They were a people of trade.
    In addition, it didn’t seem like she took the way they were treated into consideration. She did not show any empathy towards the Natives.

    William Castro

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yehoshua’s argument on the naivety of Mary Rowlandson is very convincing. I agree that it was the actions of the English that caused a reaction among the Native Americans. This conflict originated because the Native Americans were resisting the pressure to convert to Christianity, they were protecting their land from the English settlers and their way of life was in danger of extinction. However, throughout the reading I found myself trying to equate the savage brutality of the Native Americans with the savage brutality of the English. I was trying to justify the cruelty of the Native Americans because I do sympathize with Mary Rowlandson. First, she witnesses her family being mercilessly murdered, watches helplessly while her child suffers and dies in her arms and then as a captive is subjected to horrible conditions. Given these circumstances and her religious background it is easy for her to label her captors as “bloody heathens” (236).

    Her faith in God is astounding, even when in dire situations she sees evidence of God. She says “Here I cannot but take notice of the strange providence of God in preserving the heathen” (244). This brings to mind the idea of providence and predestination, a core Puritan belief. Rowlandson’s faith in God is so strong that she seeks refuge in the Bible. I think that at times her view towards the Native Americans also appear to be narrow-minded and ethnocentric. She only sees the brutality of the Native Americans and not of her own people. She says “Little do many think what is the savageness and brutishness of this barbarous enemy” (238). She sees her way of life as the much superior than theirs because she associates their lifestyle with that of the devil. This is also evident when she says “oh the roaring and singing and dancing, and yelling of those black creatures in the night, which made the place a lively resemblance of hell” (238).

    Although the reading appeared to be biased there are still vivid descriptions of the lives of the Native Americans. These descriptions do give them “human traits” (as Diana suggested) and not animalistic ones as often as portrayed. They seem to be experiencing the human condition like the rest of us. They constantly suffer from hunger; (having to forage for beans carcasses); they suffer from diseases (it is noted that many of the babies (papooses) died often) and from the constant threat of the English encroaching on their land.

    One aspect of the reading I found quite interesting was that in survival mode, Rowlandson was able to use her skill for knitting to sometimes barter food. In fact she had numerous requests for stockings and shirts. I was wondering though where was she getting the yarn or wool to knit with?

    -Vedi Ramdhanie

    ReplyDelete
  5. In the text, Mary Rowlandson speaks about her abduction by the Indians. Who she calls "barbarous creatures" on page 238 The First Remove. She clearly and bluntly reflects on all the terrible events that occured in the time of her captivity. She continuesly prays to god and holds her faith in god which was personally uplifting because what else is one to do in a situation such as this one. When Rowlandson explains the illness her child was going through and the pain she was in that evetually led to her childs death. Then was quickly forced to part from the body. Not even being able to bid a proper goodbye was heavy to take in. However I found her quite disturbing at the start. I do believe she must of been some what aware of the acts towards the indians by the englsih yet she doesnt seem to express it. She seemed selfish and ignorant atleast during that time. She wasnt the only one who ever starved or answered to a master,a slave, feared rape and beatings. Yet she expresses her self as though her and her people are the only ones to experience such brutality. Eventually she realizes that the native americans are going through the same troubles as her. In the end it was interesting ofcourse to read this text and read her thoughts transition to sorrow for the indians .

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree with Yehoshua. As I was reading along Rowlandson's narrative I came to think whether she was aware of why the native Indians were behaving in such a way. Like Yehoshua I too don’t condom the Indians actions but I do understand what moved them to take such actions. Through her narrative you get a sense of how Mary Rowlandson’s is becoming a new and less “sophisticated” woman for lack of better word. As she puts it herself, before her captivity she would be repugnant before eating bear or horse’s flesh, but at the time of her captivity it seem very “acceptable” to her.
    One thing that I don’t understand, On the Ninth Remove she was giving the permission by her master to go visit her son Joseph whom was at the time one mile away from her. Why didn’t she run away? Instead after having difficulty while trying to find her son’s location she goes back to her master and asks for proper directions.


    -Vanessa M

    ReplyDelete
  7. What touched me most about this reading is the constant faith in God and Scripture then kept Mary going. Through out the reading everything she felt like giving up or dying she says God kept giving her strength to go on and her spirit didn't break.

    I thought the Indians were merciless and I cant sympathize with them at all. Even if the Native Indians had a reason for behaving they way they did their actions were unforgivable. The torture and brutal kills were horrific.

    In response to Vanessa's question about the Ninth Remove and why Mary didn't just escape. I feel she didn't escape because if she did her Master would kill her sick son. She couldn't just pick her son up and move on because of his illness. They would not have gotten far.

    In the Twelfth Remove she even refers to her master as being her best friend (indian friend).

    ReplyDelete
  8. I also agree with Yehoshua, Mary Rowlandson never really mention how the British took over the Native American land’s and property. The Indians were protecting themselves against the British. Rowlandson also never felt hate towards the Indians. She never wished death upon them. I felt her reading the Bible gave her hope during her capture. It made her change her personality and stays alive. The Indians also realize how the British viewed them as savages. Whenever Rowlamdson asked about her children the Indians always said that they were burn and their hands and body parts were eaten.
    Rowlandson never lost hope. In the end when she returns to her husband and family she said that she never wanted to escape or try to run away. Her hope and faith in the lord as she said help her to her capture without any harm. The Indians didn’t give her food at times. They laughed at her when she felt weak. Despite all these things Rowlandson never wish death upon them. She was disgust at the fact that Indians ate all kinds of animals, and didn’t want to be part of it. Like it or not Rowlandson eats what the Indians have to offer. I felt that Rowlandson was part of the Native American life. She lived with the Indians and learns some of their customs and way of life. I felt that the Native Americans were just like Rowlandson, trying to survive anyway they could.

    ReplyDelete
  9. In a way, I guess Mary Rowlandson's story is the second side to the stories of the injustices penetrated upon Indians. I mean no one is going to say that they support Mary Rowlandson being treated badly or being starved but no offense, can we compare her story to the stories of other Indians who suffered way more than she did. I mean, come on, we are talking about a race of people that were almost in extinction due to the greed, ignorance, and stupidity of man. Do I feel some sort of sympathy towards her, well, yes? I feel sad for her in the sense that she lost her child in her arms but the child was buried. The child was not just dumped into some grave with hundreds of bodies without any sense of identity. Mary was allowed to actually go and visit the burial ground where her child was. We all have read stories about Native Americans who were killed, no, wrong choice of word, hmm, I think slaughtered is better and then were dumped in graves, burned, and forgotten. There are stories of Indian women being raped, tortured, and humiliated. I also find her reasoning for everything that occurs, which is always God, to be freaking annoying. I mean, hey, go with God and keep the faith, but seriously, seriously......let’s just blame the actions of man on man, it is okay to do so. Let’s give God a break.

    Oh and let’s not forget her ignorance at what she sees the so-called "barbarous creatures" doing. She has her religion and she celebrates her religion in a certain manner. Well guess what, so do the Indians. They have their religious beliefs, their likes, and their own ways of celebrating their Gods. They worship their Gods through dancing, chanting, drinking, eating, ways that are ignorant to Mary. When she sees them doing this, she automatically thinks of them as savages which kinda pissed me off. Her experience, we can say, allowed her to lose some part of her ignorance about the world, her experience allowed her to see that there were other kinds of people in the world who have their own religions, their own ways of life, and yes, even though, to Mary, these ways of life is in contrary to her belief, she still experienced it. Like I said, I do feel some form of sympathy for her but seriously and honestly, welcome to the suffering. She was lucky. She actually went back home to her husband and to her friends, can we say that to the bodies of Indians that are still in graves with absolutely no identities.......

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Narrative of Mary Rowlandson deals with the miraculous survival of this woman. She not only has great strength physically, but emotionally as well. After all, she has to watch her young child die a slow death with much suffering. She continues on for the sake of the rest of her family, yet it becomes quite obvious that her belief in God and her bible that she is given pull her through and we are constantly reminded of this throughout the narrative. Maybe that is why she never is bitter or even seems angry at anyone.
    Mary Rowlandson does whatever she must do in order to survive and get along with the others and I deeply respect that. She is able to trade all kinds of items that she makes for them or knits clothes for them and gets food and other items in return. She eats what she must eat, whether she likes it or not, for example, bear. She is intelligent enough to handle herself in every situation. Sometimes, she is even treated with kindness, as a squaw of her master lays a mat under her and a good rug over her.
    Every time Mrs. Rowlands goes on to a new location there is a new section that begins in the book, instead of paragraphs that run on and on. This gives me an opportunity to absorb what just happened before I go on to the next section (Remove). It certainly helps in creating something to read that is difficult to put down because one is constantly in suspense as what is going to happen next.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mary Rowlandson’s narrative represents one of the first American Literature writings. It is very controversial though, it has to be analyzed from different perspectives: historical, religious, and literary. Her captivity happened during the war of the Native Americans and English colonizers. Her writing is focused on depicting the English as Christian saviors from her captivity. But is short to observe basic historic facts; the English came to colonize, e.g.: to expand their culture, religion, and customs. They did not come to share with the Native Americans; they came to expropriate lands in America, and use as their beach head the colonizers. They did not take prisoners; they exterminated all of Native American that crossed their path. And this custom come from ancient times in Europe, like the wars between England and France, religious wars; the soldiers cut each other heads, raped women, and committed the most uninimaginabled atrocities. Rowlandson uses the different passages of the Bible properly, she is mastered in the bible, and it could be because her husband was religious minister. She keeps on repeating against and against during all the twenty removes that lasted her captivity how inhumane are the Native Americans. She sounds like the Spanish Inquisition when they condemned the Native American, they say Native Americans were pagans, they were beasts. At the end after her captivity and release, she did not tell us what the English did to the Native Americans; they slain King Phillip, his wife and children were sold as slaves; and decimated the rest of them.
    Mary Rowlandson demonstrates she is a good writer; her strong arguments are enforced by biblical passages. It is a way to justify the action of the Christian English, what they did to the Native Americans.
    Ysidoro

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete