How does Harriot’s account of the Virginia natives differ from those of the Spanish we have read? What do these differences suggest about Harriot’s imagined terms of settlement in Virginia?
OR
Think about the differences between Smith’s and Harriot’s accounts of settlement in Virginia? What are the differences in the way they describe the region and its inhabitants? What do those differences tell us about the two explorers and writers?
6 thoughts on “Virgina: Smith and Harriot”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Harriot’s account of the Virginia natives serves as a stark contrast to those of the Spanish accounts. The Spanish, as have been discussed in class, viewed the Native Americans as savage, strange creatures. The Spanish chose to harp on and exacerbate the differences between the Europeans and the Indians; all their differences are exaggerated so as to underline that this is a New World and generate interest. The way in which Indians organize their society could not be equated to Europe. However, Harriot’s account of the Virginia natives contradicts this. He begins his account by noting that the Indians he has encountered are “not to be feared,” implying that they are not too abstract or foreign. Indeed, his following description is neither menacing nor strange; rather, Harriot describes in great detail a different but not entirely foreign way of life. For example, he describes the houses as “much like the arbors in our English gardens” in the fourth paragraph, immediately drawing parallels between the two societies. He continues that while the English could win if they fought the natives, there is no need for that—the Indians only want to “please and obey” them. He even goes so far as to give them credit for their current lifestyle, noting that given their lack of means, they are an “ingenious” people. Harriot takes time to understand their culture, as evidenced by his explanation of their religion. While their religion is different, the main tenants of Christianity and the Indians’ religion are similar (life after death, paying for one’s sins, etc.). Harriot makes a point of underscoring that the Indians are extremely fascinated by Christianity and thus open to peaceful conversion. He even tells the anecdote of the Virginia natives voluntarily praying to Christian Gods after a corn draught, consequently forming a “wonderful opinion” of Harriot’s people. Regardless of the veracity of these stories, it is apparent that these were not hostile relations.
Perhaps by 1588, the New World was no longer so new, and the need to describe a society completely alien to Europe’s was not so necessary to foster interest. Instead, Harriot was attempting to coexist with the Indians. He writes that “through discreet handling and wise government” they will come to “know, obey, fear, and love us.” His writing clearly reveals he saw no need to enslave or eradicate these Virginia natives in order to settle the New World. They could coexist and over time maybe even become the English’s equals. As history reveals, however, this did not come to fruition.
There are several differences between Smith’s and Harriot’s accounts of settlement in Virginia that I would like to note. It seems that Smith has a greater respect for the natives and their ways of living, even though he was captured by them and calls them barbarians. He wishes them well in the end of his writing and sees their culture as different but not necessarily wrong. Harriot, on the other hand, has little respect for the natives. He sees them as primitive and timid, often running away from strangers. To be fair, he does say that they “show excellence of wit” although they have limited tools and crafts. Another difference is in the way that Smith and Harriot perceive the natives’ religious practices. Harriot calls it “far from the truth” but “may be easier and sooner reformed.” Smith sees the natives religion in a more objective light, describing their practices but not passing judgement. Smith is more concerned with creating relationships and understanding the natives while Harriot critiques their culture and lifestyle. It is not clear whether the two men encountered any of the same natives and the time difference in their explorations can account for some of the differences in their observations. Still, we can see that Smith had a more open-minded and progressive approach to interacting with the natives even though he ran into some trouble along the way, it seemed to work itself out in the end.
After reading Harriot’s and Smith’s different accounts of settling in Virginia, I noticed one primary and very interesting difference. The two authors differ in their perception of their own mortalities and the danger the natives present to them. Harriot moves through his account, frequently mentioning and justifying why he believes the natives will not be a threat. He mentions how interested and ‘in-awe’ they are of himself and his crew as well as how futile their weapons and civilizations are compared to his weapons and skills. In every village he appears to have been greeted warmly. On the contrary, Smith’s account begins with a very sobering view of the settler’s own mortality. He frequently describes how sick and weak and hungry they were and how they were saved frequently by gifts from the natives. He then describes how he sought the natives out for trade partners and was attacked and eventually captured (although he too notes the advantage of western weaponry). The differences in their perceptions of their own mortality and the dangers the natives present may stem from the differences in their personal experiences in Virginia and the 40 year time difference. If we take him at his word, it is obvious that Harriot was never really attacked by the Indians and only the intrigued, genial side of the natives. Smith on the other hand, was attacked multiple times and was eventually taken prisoner and nearly executed. He clearly cannot deny the very real danger of the natives. Perhaps they encountered entirely different tribes, or that Harriot was still angling to recruit others to come to the new world with his writings, but I think it is more likely that the native’s opinion of the settlers changed in the 40 years between Harriot and Smith. By the time Smith wrote of his tales in Virginia, there may have been many bad interactions between the natives and the settlers that would lead the natives to be very defensive or even aggressive towards Smith’s party.
Smith’s account of the settlement of Virginia is a told as a chronological story. He emphasizes the hardships the settlers faced and explains the difficulties of “establishing a commonwealth” so far from their mother country. In reference to Natives, he only refers to them as “savages” and tells the story of their initial food offerings and subsequent interactions with the settlers. His description of them is similar to Harriot’s in that they both expose the dynamic relationship between settlers and natives, and how they struggle with how to deal with one another. However Harriot’s account is different in that is it told much more subjectively. It exposes Harriot’s beliefs that the natives are not to be feared and will admire the white settlers as long as they can tread lightly and keep peace. Smith’s account is more direct and less anthropological, showing how the land was settled instead of telling. Harriot believes religion and spirituality explain the behavior of the natives, while Smith references religious practices without surmising that these beliefs defined and explained the sequence of events. Harriot attempts to get inside the head of the natives and it seems like he is interested in the “christian glory-oriented approach” that Kenneth suggested, which makes his entire description less valid.
Harriots account of the Natives seems to be different than the Spanish accounts of Natives. For one, many of the Spanish accounts talk about cannibals and amazons, which both seem to be fierce and savage. It would be imagined that the Spanish would need to conquer a people that would not go down without a fight. Harriots account portrayed the Natives as gentle and even timid or scared. His descriptions don’t sound to me to be that of a “savage indian,” but of what he sees as a primitive people. Harriot says that the Natives are poor and lack skill and judgement. He states that they can easily be conquered because they are not as advanced, but he also sees they have potential. Harriot has hope for the Natives and almost makes it seem like they can be conquered without fighting because they would be so eager to learn the white ways. He predicts they will “most probably desire our friendship and love, and, respecting our achievements, they will try to please and obey us.” One example he gives is related to religion. He recognizes that they have religion, although wrong, and would be willing and able to accept their religion. Harriot makes it sound like the Natives he has encountered would be willing to please him, whereas the Natives the Spanish encountered would need to be conquered.
The differences in the descriptions by Smith and Harriot can be seen in each’s point of view. Harriot sees the natives as underlings that are not confident in themselves or their religion when faced with the settlers. He finds that they tend to be dependent on the settlers for religious and general advice. This being said, I feel that there is an element of the noble savage in the description. He does not call them savages or barbarians and he describes them as a generally peaceful group that maintains good relations with the settlers despite some disputes. I also found his and the native’s wonder at the epidemic that followed them to be interesting. It is clear that neither group really knows what is going on, but Harriot seems to justify and glorify the epidemic with religion. It causes the natives to again question their own beliefs, as they see the epidemic as an affirmation of the Christian religion.
Smith, on the other hand, takes a far less judgmental and religious approach. It is more of an objective view from the eyes of someone who is taken in by the natives and eventually accepted by them. I feel that he is still confused by some of their actions because he calls them savages and barbarians and his descriptions of their rituals and attire are totally different than anything he has ever seen. However, it is clear that he maintains a good relationship with the natives in the end as Powhatan lets him return to Jamestown and agrees to trade land for some of the Captain’s weaponry. Further, Smith’s descriptions are much more specific. He is sure to mention the specific Indian towns that he goes to and the names of different players in the story. To me it is clear that Smith is more concerned with reporting the history as it is, while Harriot brings in a more Christian and glory-oriented approach.