The Captivity Narrative as a Reflection of Reality

The captivity narrative was a form of literature that was popular throughout New America, from the early seventeenth to late nineteenth centuries. These documents, journals, or rewritten oral accounts were generally written to recount the captives’ experiences under “savage” control. These stories bear strong elements of European ethnocentrism, and helped to serve as a justification for the overall conquest of Native America. This exaggerated perspective however, allows the reader to catch a glimpse into the reality and truth of how the Natives treated their captives and what can be said about their ultimate humanity.

In a compilation of narratives entitled Captured by the Indians: 15 Firsthand accounts, 1750-1870, Frederick Drimmer notes that “Occasionally there is a note of exaggeration or romanticizing in the narratives, but by and large they bear the stamp of truth” (Drimmer 11). This exaggeration can be explored through the association with a subconscious production of objectifies “others” (Ben-Vi xvii).

The Captivity Narrative

The first occurrences of captivity narratives began with the English captives of Barbary pirates in the early seventeenth century. These were early accounts of Europeans who had been brought into slavery through piracy near the North African coast. (Baepler 217). These narratives are comparable to the later Indian captivity narrative, in which the Whites identify themselves as helpless slaves under a barbarous savage captor. These were written in a different era however, when the western ideas of enlightenment had just begun to spark. Ideas of White superiority and Manifest Destiny spread as quickly as the settler population.

Ethnocentrism and Foreignness as a rationale for Conquest

The ideas of this time were what fueled the settlers’ justification for colonizing the New World. What fueled this hegemony though, was a more deeply rooted. Ben-Svi’s concept of  “false foreignness”  argues that, “through elaborate strategies of separation, captives are represented as mutually foreign,” rather than the captives being able to identify with their captors (Ben-Svi ix-x). This view of being mutually foreign, suggests that rather than noticing the similarities of humanity between their peoples, they took more notice to their differences. As stated by William B. Hesseltine, these differences were recognized by the settlers, to be sins committed by the Natives (Venebles xii).

Elements of this extreme ethnocentrism can be seen in the captivity narrative of Mary Rowlandson, a puritan woman captured by the Wampanoag in Massachusetts in the midst of King Phillips War (Venebles 225). Her narrative style is focused on seeing the Native Americans as heathenistic rather than humanistic. Upon being taken, Rowlandson deems her captors to be “Barbarous Creatures,” and that the “roaring, and singing and dancing, and yelling of those black creatures in the night… made the place a lively resemblance of hell” (Venebles 226).She attributes much of the treatment she received under captivity to the “favour of God,” rather than the actions of comparable human beings. For example, they allowed her to carry less than the entire group while she was wounded, however they would not let her rest from work on the Sabbath day (Venebles 228-229). The first shows an element of compassion, to give Rowlandson an easier load to carry while injured, but the latter shows them unwilling to break their egalitarian ideas to allow one person not to work. 

Painting depicting Rowlandson and her Captors

Compared to other captives of her time, Mary Rowlandson spent a relatively short time under captivity, eighty-three days (Venebles 233). Her narrative is primarily focused on defining her captors as the enemy, and longing for her eventual escape. There were several others who lived the duration of their lives under captivity, and their experiences give a more ample perspective into the everyday lives of captives.

                Many of those who were captured by Native Americans had another perspective, and were able to be washed of their White blood and accepted into their new family (Drimmer 12). In the case of Mary Jemison, when given the choice to leave her captivity she declined, and lived until age ninety on the Seneca Buffalo Creek Reservation (Venebles 237). The language of Jemison’s narrative differs greatly from that of Mary Rowlandson. Upon her arrival into captivity in the year 1755, her new captors gave her new clothing, and welcomed her as their sister. Regarding the Seneca Nation, Jemison states that “Their wants were few, and easily satisfied; and their cares were only for to-day…If peace ever dwelt with men, it was in former times, in the recesses from war, amongst what are now termed barbarians” (Venebles 235). Mary Jemison’s account is an important comparison to many captivity narratives, although it is the opposing extreme. Her story reflects a more romanticized story, and focuses on the kind deeds that were bestowed upon her. These kind deeds are seen as a completely different way of living than was common among the settlers at this time, and still shows the prescription of otherness, even if in a more positive light.

Reflections of Reality

                The famous case of John Tanner allows the reader to see the complete polar opposites of some other narratives in one man’s story. Tanner’s family had become abusive to him after the death of his mother, and he often longed to “live among the Indians” (Drimmer144). When he was ten years old, he was taken by the Shawnee. In his first family, he had been taken to replace a woman’s deceased son, however  his new father abused him and refused to accept him as his son, while his new mother “would throw her arms about me and he would beat us both together” (Drimmer 151). This is an important occurrence as it shows immediately the parallels between the two cultures, and reiterates the strong idea of mother as refuge. Also important to note is that after leaving this first family to live with an Ojibway family, Tanner was no longer abused. His new father was “always indulgent and kind to me, treating me like an equal. When speaking to me, he always called me son” (Drimmer 153). This shows that regardless of race, ethnicity, or family groups, violence is perpetuated by individuals and not by these groups as a whole.

Discussion

                It is important to note some of the reasons for taking Whites captive. The most prominent being to replace a deceased member of their family, which is what was stated to have happened in the cases of Mary Jemison and John Tanner. Replacement could be for a multitude of reasons; in an egalitarian society, a loss of a person could impact the resources for the whole group. Adopting a new “child” would also help the family psychologically to pass the grieving process more quickly. These captives generally became a legitimate part of the family they had joined, and when they left, their Native families would grieve just as they would for any other loss (Drimmer 14).

These were also times of war between Nations, and part of the capture could be seen as ransom for land. The settlers originally claimed land for themselves and eventually spread their populations over Indigenous hunting grounds and resource areas. Treaties were written and broken, and the Native Americans were treated as second class beings (Drimmer 15). Taking captives can be seen as retaliation or ransom for the land which was unlawfully taken from them.

Drimmer points out an important fact, that although many narratives focus on the positive treatment from Native Americans, all mention others who were killed either in the process of capturing, or whilst under captivity. They also tell of Native Americans who were killed by settlers. This is important because although some accounts speak of the other side as killing in horrible methods, such as scalping, these methods were used on both sides. The difference is, that while both were fighting for the land, it only rightfully belonged to one group. Something else that is mentioned by Drimmer and Venebles is that no women were ever sexually abused while in captivity. Compare this to incidents of the early European conquistadors and later African slavery in the United States, and it shows an incredible difference in humanity.

In conclusion, it is important to read captivity narratives from a phenomenological perspective. These stories show through their exaggerated romanticism and ethnocentrism the undoubted truths of Indigenous civilization. Although they tried to show the savagery of Natives, the result was the opposite. They show immense logical fallacies and projections of foreignness that occur in all nations. In the end, it is individuals making decisions and not entire Nations as a whole.

Baepler, Paul Michel. "The Barbary Captivity Narrative in American Culture." Early American Literature 39.2 (2004): 217-46.

Ben-zvi, Yael. "Ethnography and the Production of Foreignness in Indian Captivity Narratives."  The American Indian Quarterly 32.1 (2008). 

Drimmer, Frederick. Captured by the Indians: 15 Firsthand Accounts. New York: Dover, 1985(Reprint from1961). 

Venables, Robert W. American Indian History: Five Centuries of Conflict & Coexistence. Vol. 1.   Santa Fe, NM: Clear Light, 2003.