Jumping off of the class discussion today at the end of Narrative of the Life of Mary Jemison, I wanted to address in a little more detail the constant comparison between the Indian’s violent, bloodthirsty ways and their peaceful, kind lifestyle before this novel is completely put to rest. Mary describes many scenes of her quiet, happy life in the Seneca village, where they did not have much hard work and few things to worry about. On pages 85 and 97, for instance, Mary elaborates on the high “moral character” of the Indian people, among other virtues. However, throughout the novel, Mary (or Seaver?) often juxtaposes this idyllic view with those of lines upon lines of graphic scenes of blood, gore, and torture of whites at the hands of her “moral” Indians.
This brings into play the entire idea of morality, and its definition across cultures. Viewed from white culture, this torture of white people would be considered immoral and completely savage. However, viewed from Indian culture, since it was a warrior act committed during war time, it would be considered just revenge and justice in their society, and hence not immoral. So, through which moral code should this novel be viewed—through the eyes of white society or those of the Indians? Can either really be considered “moral”?
The Indians also have a unique system of handling prisoners where they give a family of a deceased warrior a prisoner (or scalp, if no live prisoners are available) to replace the family’s dead relative. The family makes the decision of exacting revenge (eye for an eye justice) or adopting (an eye for an eye only leads to more blindness), but either are acceptable and in accordance with the Indians justice system. Hence, both options are considered moral, yet one is very obviously crueler than the other. White society does not really have a similar, widespread infrastructure that allows for possible peaceful hybridization of the family unit and tolerance. The gap in the story concerning how white people treat and deal with Indian captives allows no comparison between the two. Ultimately, there needs to be more than a one-sided view for one to decide how they individually see morality in this novel.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
This post evokes one of my favorite lines of the text--in the author's introduction, when Seaver described those who fled to Indian tribes as "defaulters who wished by retreating to what in those days was deemed almost the end of the earth, to escape the force of civil law."
This is, quite simply, a very ironic statement. In it, we see the obvious verbal irony, in the concept of escaping "the force of civil law," a sentiment that doesn't jibe particularly well either with today's judicial system or with the definition of "civility."
However, the situational irony is undoubtedly more potent. The thought of escaping white society at the risk of involving oneself with the exceptionally cruel practices of the Indians, given the descriptions the book goes on to provide, seems like madness.
It's difficult, then, to make comparisons between the relative cruelties and barbarism of whites and Indians. On the one hand, we have the scenes of extreme violence at the hands of Indians; on the other, we have white fugitives who accept Indian law in favor of remaining part of white society.
Mildly related to this post, I think we need to stress Seaver's ends with this book that end being to create an exciting book that would sell like hot cakes. When describing these graphics scenes of torture and punishment, to me, I see both an account of Jemison's experience and a very sly attempt to take advantage of those experiences by Seaver.
However, more along the lines of the post, I agree with your assessment that with the clash of cultures that manifests in the books is the idea of morality as a subjective entity where good and bad are characterizations that are not crystal clear.
I agree with Vu that Seaver's motive for writing this book was profit. One, captive narratives were extremely popular at the time and would guarantee some income. Two, the more "entertaining" aspects of the narrative are clearly stressed and prolonged throughout the book. A sad, less enthralling (to the readers) moment of Mary's life was when her first baby died after two days. Seaver leaves only one sentence to signify her mourning, "it was a girl: and notwithstanding the shortness of the time that i possessed it, it was a great grief to me to lose it" (p.82). This event would easily have been more influential on Mary's life than, say, seeing the three dead traders floating down the river, which had at least a paragraph of explanation. Does this put the verity of Seaver's portrayals of so called captivating events in question?
Post a Comment