English vs. Spanish

It seems that both groups were after the same thing; colonization and religion. The similarities in both topics are astounding. They both agreed that the Indians considered them as gods from heaven, and they both agreed that they wanted all the gold and goods they can get. The proclaiming of the areas seem unrealistic, but in those days the natives were outnumbered.

Should we tolerate other cultures?

Ever since David asked the aforementioned question, I can't help but ponder all the various reasons the Spanish and the British give to justify their intolerance of other cultures. Some of the reasons are familiar to me, consistent with the atrocities explained to us in our history classes. I am not surprised that the Spanish believed that those who could not be converted to Christianity were less than human and deserved whatever punishment the Spanish desired to give them. Similarly, I would not be surprised to read that lands were occupied and lives taken due to differences in race or ethnicity. I've heard these stories before, whether they were derived from antiquity or the 20th century. And while I know that America has had her share of intolerant behavior towards other cultures, I take solace in the fact that in the 21st century it's harder for American foreign policy to subjugate other cultures and nations based on their religions, races, ethnicities and other cultural practices. It's not an impossible occurrence, but in this day and age, one's party platform would not include institutional discrimination against an entire culture. I like to think that we have come a long way since "The Requirement."

But Spenser's "A View of the State of Ireland" presents different reasons for Britain's intolerance of Irish culture, reasons that more closely resemble modern concerns. Spenser, as represented by Irenaeus, explains to Eudoxus that the British government should send military forces to Ireland to dominate the Irish because the Irish are so "barbaric" that even British laws cannot civilize them. While Spenser goes to great lengths to exemplify the Irish's barbaric behaviors, what it all comes down to on page 20 is one's ability to support a particular form of government and follow that government's rules. This doesn't seem different from modern concerns. Aren't the Americans the defenders of democracy? It's seems less outrageous for our country to militarily occupy another country if they don't believe in democracy than it does for us to occupy a country because the people practice a different religion. Take Nazi Germany for example. That's an obvious historical example in which a nation did not follow the principles of democracy and it was evident, at a certain point, that the US needed to intervene. But what about in today's world? Can we continue to justify our time in Iraq and other Middle Eastern nations because of their lack of democracy? Do we have the right to be there? And if we stay, do we commit to nation building or is that a lost cause (as some politicians would have it)? It bothers me that Spenser called for Britain to invade and occupy Ireland, but didn't Britain feel threatened? Don't nations have a right to protect themselves? These are things to consider as we move forward in the class.

"Thomas Harriot's voice seeking harmonious co existence with a hint of restrained ambition "

I just loved Thomas Harriot's reportof the New Found Land of Virginia.I do not know if it was brief or true but I feel inclined to believe it mostly for its attitude of friendly co existence with a great degree of objectivity. I am not surprised to read that it was one of the most significant travel accounts published in the entire sixteenth century. Even though it has been called nationalist propaganda, its ethnographic content manages to tone down any unfavorable attitude that may be easily noticeable in accounts read earlier by other travel writers.

Harriot has not hidden his liking for the people he met.His Christian beliefs and habits are staunch but do not blind him so much as to view other people with a sense of insecurity or aggressiveness. He views them as 'worthy potential neighbors'. He is aware of the English superiority in science, warfare and life patterns but he is also keen to establish colonizers in Virginia and does not cloud their minds with presumptions or racial misgivings. In this stand, Harriot is a true modern day diplomat. He is an excellent emissary to receive information from as he will never use a tone that will hurt future relationship building in any way whatsoever.

He is relieved to discover that the people do not know many war strategies or have hard edged weapons. he sees in them a potential for being good Christians but only when the time is right.His manner of describing their religious practices is such as that will put a missionary on a slow and steady path towards their conversion and never put the English in so much over awe of their own religious superiority so as to forgo the sensitivity needed towards this process.

His approach towards Winoans Winginas and other natives is peaceful and non violent which puts him and his fellow travellers in an esteemed position with the natives. The mildness and objectivity of his account surely benefitted the English much more than many an aggressive and passionate versions of Christian superiority related by travel writers and eagerly read by the west in the century.

The art of propaganda

The more I read the account by Thomas Harriot, the more the italicized summaries rang true. This account was truly that of a man hell-bent on encouraging English settlement in the Americas.

Beginning with his description of the native's religion, one cannot miss the similarity to Christianity. Although there were no written accounts, they were passed "from father to son." Addtionally, they believed in the "immortality of the soul" which is "either carried to heaven, there to enjoy perpetual bliss or else to a great pit hole...there to burn continuously." And finally, there were reports of individuals rising from the dead, just like Lazarus in Christianity. So we have the father and son, heaven and hell and rising from the dead. Sounds like Christianity to me. How encouraging it would have been for the English back home to see that the religion of the natives was so similiar to theirs that conversion would be a piece of cake.

Additional evidence of the push for English settlement lies in his descriptions of the land itself. The soil was "fatter, the trees greater...finer grass, and good as we ever saw in England"-perfect for grazing animals in other words. Also, "in some places more plenty of their fruit, more abundance of beasts, the more inhabited with people,...with greater towns and houses."

Obviously cognizant of Spains hold on the new world, the intent of this account was to encourage the English to take their own hold of the new world before it was completely in the hands of Spain. I don't know about the English, but there was much is this account which would have made me consider an Atlantic crossing.

One other observation-I couldn't help but notice was how so many natives were dying after Harriot and his men left a particular region-no they were not gods like the natives supposedly believed, but merely more vicitims of the germs the Europeons left in their wake.

One thing that struck me immediately was the detail invested in these accounts, particularly Hakluyt's and Hariot's. I can easily see how Hariot's account could be regarded, as the blurb preceding it tells us, was the most important travel account of the 16th century. The detail invested in his writing creates a vivid impression, particularly coupled with White's paintings.

Hariot obviously has an agenda to his writing but the act of reporting seems to take precedence, the same with Hakluyt who in the middle of his Pacific travel account spares space for descriptions of what they see on the land.

Another thing that struck me was the ignorance, or at least pretense of it, in Hariot's account. Does he really not put two and two together and realize that natives are dying in villages only they encounter because of different physiologies? Or is he pretending, like the Indian elders who pretend to suck out the "invisible bullets" and calm the common folk?

Early Racial Superiority in the tone of Vespucci's Account

It was rather fascinating to read Vespucci's account of the people and life in Brazil.He seemed to be disturbed by hearing about or witnessing incidents of cannibalism.The idea of captives of war to be salted or pickled for meals seems quite stomach churning.Vespucci also mentions a man who ate about three hundred human bodies.These observations seem to create an insurmountable distance between the South Americans and the western readers of the time and introduce the idea of racial superiority.

In a time where many people criticize America for trying to spread its ideaologies in places it may not be wanted and more generally, for its "better than the rest of the world" attitude, what initially struck me when reading this week, was how common it was in the times of Columbus to have this same attitude that is now frowned upon, to say the least. One thing these explorers seem to have in common, aside from their excitement and curiousity about their discoveries, is how casually they seem to be when swooping in and taking over a new land. It is alsmost as if they feel, since they were the first of their kind to discover these new lands, they are granted rights to have them under their rule. Columbus mentions that he has seized all of the Canary Islands for the King and Queen, and is rather insistent that these uncivilized people become Christian. Mancall notes that "Columbus's initial report has barely a critical word to offer about his journey and is bathed instead in triumphal rhetoric." Indeed, Columbus writes his report as though he has just won possesion of land simply by finding it. The arrogance that eminates from his assumptions leaves me feeling a bit naive for thinking that these people were merely interested in the new world for the sake of exploring other lands and cultures. And while Vespucci's account is far less over the top than Columbus', it still reads with a somehwat condescending tone toward the Brazilian natives. However, while reading his account I was intrigued by how much knowledge of these people he was able to gain. Perhaps I am being ignorant, but how was any language barrier overcome? It seems like all of these explorers were able to gain a considerable amount of information about these strange people, who seemed to welcome them, instead of considering them a threat, which might have been my guess of their reactions. Columbus suggests that the people thought he was sent from the heavens, which would explain why they didn't kill him, however, how were they able to understand each other so well in just a few weeks? I found their accounts facinating, and yet somewhat puzzling.