The Iroquois Creation Story

The Iroquois Creation Story deals with beginnings of the world. Full of imagery and nature and animals.

The story starts with a women being pregnant with twins and resting. While sleeping she starts to fall into the world of darkness but lands safely on the back of a turtle. This woman is pregnant with twins, the evil of the two bursts through her side instead of being born normally. The twins both live without the mother. the good twin wants to bring light and the evil twin wants the land to stay the way it is. The good twin uses the mothers head for the sun. After some time the two twins fight, each one reveling what will kill them: "Which [the good twin] falsely mentions that by whipping with flags would destroy his temporal life... [the evil twin] relates by the use of deer horns, beating his body he would expire (20-21).". They fight and the good twin wins and the evil twin becomes the Evil Spirit.

This story is interesting because of how late it was recorded. In oral traditions a story changes along with it's narrators. In this case I'll point out that the good twin lies and says that flags will kill him. What is the subtext in post Columbus America? That the good will win but with lies about their weakness, so in order to win one must not be honest about their weaknesses. The part about flags killing a person is directly related to the influence of European cultures on the Native Americans.



<---Good





<---Evil

Cabeza De Vaca

Alvar Nunez Cabeza De Vaca: The Relation of Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca

To big to link but here is the Route Cabeza de Vaca took.

"We got so angry that we went off forgetting the many Turkish-shaped bows, the many pouches, and the five emerald arrow-heads, etc. (47)"

De Vaca had a fantastic story starting with slavers then being abandoned and shipwrecked and forced to wander in the desert and rely on natives for help, who would then enslave him, and finally finding other spanish slavers.

The real question is why was the one telling the story if he was not leading? Because, he was from a famous family. This is probably why he was able to make peace with the Spanish slavers since they would know who he was. Of course he had to act the part of being betrayed in order to save his families name, but the fact that he got all the above items is proof they had some kind of deal in works. Maybe it was payment for the food, or payment in advance for the slaves.

But for sure I can say De Vaca wanted out of the desert. After being in a miserable condition for years he would have, and did, jump at the chance to get out by betraying his followers. But the way De Vaca tells the story makes for a more interesting, but less real, ending to a tale about the hardship and survival.

Columbus and his Mayflower

Christopher Columbus: His letters

"... [I] found an infinity of small hamlets and people without number, but nothing of importance. (33)"

Columbus was Last, that is why he did not find anything of importance. The natives were already decimated and fearful of outsiders. Besides the reason Columbus went was to find wealth.

Although we know nothing of his birth or really anything about him before 1492, lots can be said about afterwards. Even if he was the last to go over and went for all the wrong reasons his adventure made headlines. And now people "knew" there was a whole new world out there and would soon flock over in greater number to exploit it. So in a way Columbus did make a substantial event, even though he did not discover anything, but it lead to the destruction of the Native Americans in the process.

His letters were all about selling America as a place that could be exploited. Columbus mentions how beautiful the land is but nothing about the people except that there is a lot of them. And his letter from the fourth voyage is him pleading to be excused for his actions and let out of prison in Jamaica. So in a way he is selling himself as an important resource that should be secured.

Nathaniel Philbrick, Mayflower

Nathaniel Philbrick, Mayflower

Some odd facts, first this is a Plymouth Rock.
<-----


And also that, "The City of Berkeley was named by Frederick Billings while he stood at Founder's Rock in 1866. One of the first Thanksgiving celebrations in the U.S. was in Plymouth, MA in 1621. The town of Plymouth was found at the landing site of the Mayflower (link)."

In the reading of Mayflower one of the most apparent things is how unexceptional America was to the Puritans, "The grassy fields and open forests were, in Winslow's words, "like many places in England. (107)" Maybe they were saying how this place made them feel welcome, or was like the nice areas in England, but this is not so. They are downplaying this on purpose. Because, if they write about how wonderful America is then like John Smith's book to them, others will flock to America seeking the same bounty. Basically the conquerors do not want competition and the easiest way to do this is to not say how rich the land is, or how the natives are friendly and intelligent, or just how much better (or how much less) the pollution is.

All of this tale shows how one sided the views were towards the natives, "fell to discoursing of England. He had said now "King James his man." As a consequence, the French were no longer welcome in Narraganset bay, (108)" because if they had heard of King James before they would surely be his followers sooner. And the insults about the lice and fleas in the Indian tents and how "Massasoit was "both grieved and ashamed that he could no better entertain" both on page 109. Clearly the Puritan's are showing their own biases by not saying anything good about what Massasoit could provide, but instead being poor guests. Why else who you talk trash and down play someone's generosity.

William Bradford

William Bradford, History of Plymouth Plantation.


"What could now sustain them but the spirit of God and His grace? may not and ought not the children of these fathers rightly say: 'Our fathers were Englishmen which came over this great ocean and were ready to perish in this wilderness...' (116)," by William Bradford.

Right from the beginning of the History we can see that Bradford is painting a picture in his favor. He has left out anything that would make them seem less important or their journey less hard.

The result is a tale that involves a lot of God and lot of information left out for, "...that I may be brief.. (115)." To not belabor the points that Loewen makes about the truths of the Pilgrims and the danger of teaching history this way let me give a real world example of how far some people will take things if they think that the writings are correct. Don't be scared off by Rush either.

The REAL Pilgrims Story - First Socialism Experiment FAILS

The problem (one among many) is that they accept Bradford's accounts and History as truth and not a history written with an obvious slant. A false or misleading history will cause others to paint their incorrect pictures of events. a good example is the website http://www.deepestfeelings.com/holidays/thanksgiving/history.shtml
and their quotes, "The local Indians were also non-hostile" and "Somehow they were saved by a group of local Native Americans who befriended them and helped them with food." Loewen is screaming in my ear about what is wrong with these statements, but I just wish to show how far Bradford's History is taken and how much more is invented upon it.

The History is not all fiction is does deal with what Bradford felt and the events that happened on the way there, during the landing, and building the town. However, it leaves out too much and includes too much as well. There is no mention of Bradford's wife, but we get a detailed story about a sailor who died after cursing the Pilgrim's, and a story about another two men where one was dieing gave his stuff to the other in exchange for spice so he could have a final meal but the other man went around talking about how he was cheated until the first died that morning.

It is just me but I would like to know more about this village they found stuff in, or about how they traded to make money or really anything other than how God provided for them. Which is all good and well but if Bradford showed us how the Lord provided or gave details I would be more inclined to believe that what was written would be the truth.

Anne Bradstreet

Anne Bradstreet, Here Follows Some Verses upon the Burning of Our House, July 10, 1666

"Yea, so it was, and 'twas just
It was His own, it was not mine
...
When by the ruins oft I past
My sorrowing eyes aside did cast,
...
Adieu, Adieu, all's vanity.
...
Yet, by His gift is made thine own:
There's wealth enough, I need no more.
Farewell, my pelf, farewell my store."

The last line is the window to Bradstreet's mind since it shows that she thinks of her belongings as pelf, or stolen/falsely gained goods.

But almost more interesting than that is the fact that she had written this, "after the burning of her house when she lost her personal library of 800 books. (link)"

As she is lamenting the loss of her things she makes no attempt to hold onto the memory or any part of the items she lost. She consoles herself by saying they were all God's things that she had stole and hid up, but still we can see the sorrow in her writings because she did enjoy having the books.

With just a little more history, a poem can take on a whole new meaning. Perhaps, this poem was a way for her to reconcile the events that she perceived as God's judgment on her store or as a way to let go on the attachment she once had on her books that are now burnt.

Not blaming God for doing what is considered to be an "act of God" is a common theme among her poems. After coming all the way to America and trying to concive 8 times, having a child die as well, she does not blame or question God for allowing these events to happen. In this writters view, her poems are with blame: things happen and times are hard, but no one is to blame for them happening.

Phillis Wheatley

Phillis Wheatley, poetry

"Other

wise, perhaps, the Israelites had been less solicitous for their Freedom from Egyptian Slavery: I don't say they would have been contented without it, by no Means

, for in every human Breast, God has implanted a Principle, which we call Love of freedom..." by Phillis Wheatley

She was sold into slavery at 7 and then bought by the Wheatley's who trained her to read and write. She wrote many poems and letters had three children who all died and a husband of dubious character. But the lasting question is not about her stance of slavery but did she really write all her poems.

The question of authenticity is important because it helps to establish the author as reputable and thus prove their work to be "good" from the writers honesty. The reason this is important is because it shows how society in general accepts the previously held notions of what someone from some group is capable of. I mean that the question over if she wrote this or did not is really saying: could a black slave in that era be educated and write poetry. In a way it is an examination of racism and at the other end exploitation of a black girl by her owners.