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.
