Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca

"These people love their offspring more than any in the world, and treat them very mildly.
If a son dies, the whole village joins the parents and kindred in weeping."

- Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca in "The Malhado Way of Life"

"Frazer is much more savage than most of these savages."

- Ludwig Wittgenstein in "Remarks on Frazer's Golden Bough"

Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca, or ANCdV as I'll be calling him through the course of this journal, holds a special point in history for me, because he was one of the first, well known, western anthropologists. He was sort of like Columbus version 2.0, in that he went on perilous journeys of adventure and discovery, and managed to do so without raping or killing anyone, which is pretty admirable for a 150''s Spanish explorer. In fact, not only does he NOT slaughter the indigenous peoples of wherever he went, but managed to also write very detailed journals on them, their culture, their customs, etc. What I find to be remarkably notable is that he manages to write all this tremendous literature on this culture so outrageously foreign to his own, and manages to do so without once calling them "backwards", "savages", "simple" or without writing his hands evilly and thinking "these people would make good slaves!"
Growing up, one of my favourite books were "The Golden Bough" written by James Frazier in 1890. Just in case you're not familiar with the text, here's a brief summary. James Frazier went around the world, studying a vast multitude of indigenous tribes, making detailed accounts of their society, focusing mainly on the elements of mysticism and magic he observed. His thesis was to find a unifying theme among the world's various religions and mythologies.
At the time, I had considered this to be one of the west's first and best forays into a lengthy understanding of cultures completely foreign to theirs, and I took it in with great interest, because I am a sucker for anything ancient. However, as I grew older, I began to look at Frazier's writings with more critical eye. Of course, to this day I still very much admire his work, his attention to detail, and his scholarly determination to know as much as he can about his subject, but there is one flaw in his approach. Frazier suffers from the all to difficult to eliminate "point of view". While Frazier never comes out and says anything as non PC as "These backwards savages worship the sun" or anything like that, his mindset is still very present in his writing, whereas Cabesa De Vaca seems to not only approach the subject a much more open mind, but also with a certain level of caring, and acceptance. Strange that the more enlightened viewpoint would come almost 400 years before the one that is still having some trouble.

Christopher Columbus

"From here one might send, in the name of the Holy Trinity, as many slaves as could be sold, ... If the information I have is correct it appears that we could sell four thousand slaves, who might be worth twenty million and more"

- Christopher Columbus, Journal Entry for September 1498

"For it's the end of history
Its caged and frozen still
There is no other pill to take
So swallow the one
That made you ill
The Nina The Pinta The Santa Maria
The noose and the rapist
The fields overseer
The agents of orange
The priests of Hiroshima
The cost of my desire
Sleep now in the fire"

- Rage Against the Machine, "Sleep Now in the Fire"

Who the heck WAS Christopher Columbus?
I've heard hero, I've heard monster, I've heard a product of his time, I've heard explorer, I've heard businessman, I've heard it all. I always struggle with this, at an early age, I was taught that he was a hero. He discovered America, he found it, no one knew it was here until he landed here. People told him he'd sail off the edge of the world, and barked back "screw you! I'm looking for a continent that might not exist!" It was romantic, it was epic, he was an adventurer in an uncharted frontier, he was Captain Kirk!
Then, roundabout middle school or so, people began to not like the smell of the bull that was being fed to them. Now wait, if he discovered America, what about all the people who were here first? you know them, they're called the Indians! But wait a second, this isn't India! Where did that name come from? Oh! Columbus wasn't out to "discover" America, he was looking for a secret passageway to India, and he did this by traveling WAST, even though India is to the EAST! So he landed (crashed) in America by accident, right? No wait, he actually crashed in Cuba, and the Bahamas, not technically part of America, granted it's off the coast of the South American continent, but it has nothing to do with the United States! So why all this patriotic attachment to Columbus? He didn't discover a thing, at least nothing attached to us! What's worse is that when he got here, he totally brutalized the population! Some claim that stories of him being such a huge bastard are greatly exaggerated, but it's very well documented in his own journals of his expeditions!
Why would Columbus talk so freely about such violence? And so nonchalantly for that matter? He was able to articulate his disgusting plans, his nefarious deeds, all with utter dis-attachment to the reality of his crimes. Some might hear this and call it the modus operandi of a sociopath, but I see something else, something that is simultaneously far more, and far less terrifying.
I read this and I see a man who is a product of his time. The reason he could slaughter these people en masse, rob them and bring the survivors back as slaves, is because to him, these people were not human whatsoever. You can't enslave people, that's a given, that's a basic human right! But these aren't humans, and it's okay. They shouldn't be wearing all these fancy stones and metals anyway, it's shameful! They should be adoring the greatly appointed garments of the monarchs! This wasn't a hard decision for Chris, because it was his way of life to begin with. It's awful, because it almost robs him of credibility and accountability. We know now, being the 21st Century Schizoid Men that we are, that this is deplorable behavior, and Columbus, his men, and the corrupt system that hired him should be reviled and hated, his holiday should be stricken form the record! But the sheer reality of this, the reality that makes this jagged little pill even tougher to swallow than it ALREADY IS, is that this was not a war crime, this was not a nefarious plan set forth by history's greatest villains, this was just... business as usual! Was Columbus a bad man? HE certainly didn't think so! His royal investors certainly didn't either. Columbus had done what no Spanish man had done, and he had brought back the goods to prove it, rich resources, precious stones and metals, and sub human slaves! If somewhere down the line, the world somehow adopts vegetarianism as a universally accepted truth, and way of life, will the dreadful butcher Oscar Meyer become a reviled and hated figure in history? Will Chef Boy Are Dee become public enemy number one? Don't even get me started on Ronald McDonald! My point is, are these characters inherently wicked, and vile? They represent a business, and that's what they do, they kill animals so we can eat them. From our perspective, this is not a crime, it's not even a thing that should be considered a crime. But if over the next 600 or so years, if our perspective changes drastically, then could it be possible that Wendy's founder Dave Thomas might suffer the same wrath of history that Christopher Columbus has? do these two people even deserve to be compared? Let's hope not.

Thomas Morton and William Bradford. Pilgrims and Puritans.

Morton and Bradford as almost as alike as they are different, which is what makes them so interesting. In a way, their dynamic is not unlike that of Batman and the Joker in that they sort of lived only to be one another's adversary.
It all starts with Morton, in a way, since he sort of consciously decided to settle near Plymouth, almost as if he was trying to be a bother. There, he set up Merrymount, a mere 30 miles away from the puritans, where he flaunted his flashy, sinful lifestyle, of business, and dancing! The hilarity ensues when the pilgrims go after him with full force, in a lovingly portrayed, age old style of hypocrisy that would come to define this land. The pilgrims, who fled their homeland of England in search of religious tolerance could not STAND that the guys next door had a May Pole up! It almost reads out like a farce.
Morton set up shop, and even good relations with the native Algonquin tribe, who Morton quipped, were far more pleasant allies than his "intolerant European neighbors". This whole scene brings to mind catty women lobbing underhanded insult s at one another at the salon.
The Pilgrims resented Morton's fun and fancy free lifestyle, and so, lead by Bradford, pooled every ounce of clout that had to try and get Morton arrested for unlawful sale of firearms to the surrounding native tribes. In defense of the Pilgrims, selling guns to the Indians WAS technically illegal, but it was about as illegal as downloading MP3's is today. The Pilgrims had Morton carted away, sailed across the damn ocean, and imprisoned, and while he was gone they BURNED DOWN HIS HOUSE! Because what he was doing was so awful, and so terrible, a message had to be sent!
The flip side to this, however, is comparing Morton to the puritans. The puritans thought Morton's May Pole is intolerable! However, what IS acceptable is this constant and looming belief that you were either damned... or A-OK! If you were damned, you were damned, your life and action suddenly become meaningless, you are going to hell, no questions asked. If you were NOT damned... well, well, well! You STILL might be screwed! It doesn't take much to open up those floodgates! God does not like you, he never wanted you, in all probability, he HATES you. This was the reality these people lived with every day, they raised their children to believe this. If I had to chose whose house to burn down, I might be to quick to rush over to Morton's place. Morton was not only a legitimate businessman, but an intellectual, and also an important pioneer in race relations in the newly settles/invaded frontier of the new world.
The text seems to want to argue that puritan life was not so dire and tragic, but it's really hard to imagine it any other way, but that's only coming form my 21st century, pop culture junkie loudmouth perspective.

Thomas Morton

"America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between."

- Oscar Wilde

"Many threatening speeches were given out both against his person and his habitation, which they divulged should be consumed by fire."

- Thomas Morton

Thomas Morton was not exactly an outspoken proponent of decadence, but he was an avid practitioner of it. In the view of Oscar Wilde, a man like Morton might have been that all too important dividing line in between America’s barbarism and decadence, but in the eyes of the pilgrims, he was the rising tide that loomed over their precious little lives, and represented everything that was wrong, and bad and evil. He was so reviled that they framed him as a traitor to the crown, and had him sent to prison … overseas! Morton was a victim of the Puritan’s intolerance on several occasions, and had to dodge their legal actions upon him many times, twice being sent to prison. On the second time, they burnt his plantation to the ground while he was gone, as if to drive home the point that he was not welcome. To me, however, this only symbolized a massive hypocrisy on the parts of the pilgrims, since they themselves fled to the new world in a desperate vie for religious tolerance. It really is too bad they learned nothing at all from that experience. Alas, they did not, and as a result, an intellect as alive as Morton's was not allowed to thrive, let alone survive, in the shadow of the crushing reality of colonial America. If Tom had lived a mere three centuries later, he could have possibly seen the decadent world that Oscar Wilde foresaw, and embraced. Since I enjoy the concept of novel crossovers, I can’t help but imagine what it might have been like if these two could have rubbed shoulders. Who would be the master, and who would be the mentor? I imagine a grizzled Thomas Morton taking young Oscar Wilde under his wing, and imparting all his knowledge of life worth living unto him, and as young Wilde grows and matures, taking the concept and totally running with it. I have no idea why this amuses me so.

Thomas Morton's "New English Canaan"

I like Thomas Morton, he almost reminds me of a prototype Oscar Wilde, just 275 years tamer, but the character is still there. He rubbed the pilgrims the wrong way, and I think that's another reason I love him so much. "New American Canaan" really brings out the "Bacchanalian" spirit of Morton's leanings. Decoding his poetry was by far the best part. Poetry as an art form is something I myself have barely scratched the surface of, but despite that, I can really appreciate the message laden passages, which make all kinds of colourful references to the Greek mythology, like Oedipus, and Hymen. He even make Biblical references, he invokes the name of Job in "The Poem", and even makes obscure gestures to English history, when he mentions Scogan's Choice.
Aside from the various overtures to history and mythology, the poetry's structure itself is rather pleasing. It's obvious iambic pentameter, which is actually really helpful when I get to words I've no idea how to pronounce, like "Charybdis", which interestingly enough does not have a footnote in the text (Charybdis is a sea monster, by the way).
There is only one break in the pentameter, and it occurs in lines 11 and 12. not only does "paramour" and "patient" not rhyme, but line 12 only has 9 syllables, breaking from the uniform 10 of pentameter. Why chose to break uniform here? I can't be sure, I am not a poetry expert, but to me, it seems like simple laziness. It serves no purpose, and breaks the rhythm of the piece.
"The Song" is very different, and harder to read, specifically because I am certain there is a melody that goes along with it, and not knowing it, it's hard to imagine the rhythm. There is a pretty nifty rhyme scheme going on that I really like, and a catchy little repetitive callback in the chorus. The whole thing has a very old English ring to it, and really reminds me of songs you hear sung at the Dickens Festival, and in that way, becomes a mirror for the time and the culture.
His poetry also serves as an insight to why the puritans hated him so, so bad! The very first line of "The Song" says it all, "Drink and be merry, merry, merry boys", that in and of itself is kind of the very antithesis of the entire puritan philosophy. I don't know if the puritans even had poems, or songs. To the puritans, things like songs and poetry, or anything that inspired a merry temperament were probably considered hell worthy trespasses!
In either case, Morton is a historical bad ass, and it saddened me to read of his bum deal and his sad ending.

William Bradford

"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; but they cried unto the Lord, and He heard their voice and looked on their adversity."

"(William Bradford is) a forerunner of literature"
Charles F. Richardson

The book "Of Plymouth Colony" is too often misappropriated as a journal, or as an even dryer connotation, as a history book. While it is both of these things, it is also a great deal more. William Bradford's epic work is not only the single most authoritative look into the lives of the pilgrims of Plymouth colony, but one of the earliest forms literary non-fiction. Reading it, it does not read like a journal, not as bland as "today I woke up, brushed my teeth, ate some breakfast, swept the porch..." nor does it carry the sizable weight of a historical text, which often will read as "on the date of September 7th, 1616, the Pilgrims did THIS...". William Bradford breathes such life into this place, and its people. This is not only because he lived there (although that's a big part of it). He also cared about these events and these people, which even still, on its own, doesn't seem to be the mitigating factor in why this work carried so well. Bradford lived these times, had a very real stake in them, and on top of all of that, cared a great deal about the art and craft of writing. This is made even more poignant in knowing that Bradford was a self taught individual, whose family never sent him to university. He did not have the benefit of having been taught the craft, and having his skills honed among his writing peers. On the contrary, William lived a life of relative isolation from the outside world. He was outcasted for his family situation, and then again by his family for his religious views. In this way, Bradford almost lived in a bubble. Yet despite having lived so apart from the rest of society at large, proved himself a talented and capable writer. His passages have not only taught countless generations what it was like to have lived in those days, but they paint such a detailed and specific picture of it, that to this day, these images are firmly implanted in our collective subconscious, and have taken deep roots in our culture. In this way, William Bradford really puts me in mind of Mark Twain, in that he was that generation's equivalent. Twain mustered up all of his literary bravado to write epics like "Old Times on the Mississippi", "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" and "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" which do so well to encapsulate the times they represent. In this same way, Bradford captures 27 years worth of life, very vividly depicting not only the life and times, but the drama, and the reason, and the context for this place, this time period, and these people. Wholly authentic. The times and the language have changed, but the heart of the writing remains pure, and makes the passages still highly readable, and relatable to this day.

Jon Edwards

"Eve was to be the mother of that Seed that was to bruise the head of the serpent, the grand enemy of mankind that had brought death upon them, and had the power of death, and so was to be the author of life to all that should live, i.e. all that should escape death. So Eve was the mother of all living, as all that have spiritual and eternal life are Christ's, and so the woman's Seed, because Christ was of the woman."

-Jonathan Edwards: Notes on the Bible

"Edwards’s surprisingly positive treatment of Eve in these sources reveals his willingness to deviate from the ideological background with which he has become synonymous and a theological innovator whose praise of Eve anticipates that of modern feminist theologians."

-Zachary Hutchins: Edwards and Eve: Finding Feminist Strains in the Great Awakening's Patriarch

Religious writing has little to no effect on me. When I was a boy, I was already very much disillusioned by Christianity, and most of what it and the other major religions had to offer. In effect, I had a similarly jaded outlook towards this particular period of American and European history, where Christianity held sway, in a big, big way. It influenced the decisions and outlook of most of history's major players, while at the same time, was also used as a shield of justification for their greatest crimes and mistakes. With this in mind, I slogged through the pages with Jonathan Edwards with a pithy and passing interest. I think he's actually a pretty excellent writer, I particularly liked "Images or Shadows of Divine Things", where I think his language becomes the most colourful and interesting. Despite all this, I could not get past his subject matter. I am always brought to mind of that scene from "Forrest Gump", when Forrest find his old army Lieutenant living crippled and alone in a trashy apartment in New York, and he rants and raves about the annoying people he meets in church. "Jesus this... and Jesus that! Have you found Jesus yet?" I have a similar reaction to Edwards' writing, and many other similar authors of the time. Despite his wonderfully crafted, and expert use of the language, even "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" make him out to be a caricature, all of the hilarious stereotypes you think of when you imagine the fire and brimstone preacher. It wasn't until after I had dropped the book in disgust that I retreated to the internet, to see if I could dig up anything more interesting on this author. To my surprise I found something wholly unexpected. Modern religious scholars are of the opinion that Edwards may have been one of the earliest proto-feminists, because of his pretty extreme and unique views on Eve, and other women of the Bible. My immediate thought was "since this whole class seems to be structured around progressive thinkers in history, why on Earth were his proto-feminist writings not the main focus of this section?" To me, a hyper religious white man who thinks of women with any ounce of respect other than being the dutiful wife, subject entirely to her husband is revolutionary to me. The more I read of Edwards after this, the more I began to pick up on his language and the direction of his writing pointing towards this mindset. Was I just seeing what I wanted to see at this point? Who can say? According to Wikipedia, the two writings which seem to showcase this proto-feminist view the most are "Miscellanies" and "Notes on the Bible". After much searching, I was able to find an obscure link to a Google Books page, in a 23 volume collection of Edward's writings. Why these two volumes were not made available in our text is beyond me, because they so perfectly illustrate Edwards reverence not only for Eve as a Biblical figure, but for women in general. If I could leave this class with but one suggestion, it would be to restructure this section on Edwards, because I think he has a lot more to say than just what's selected for him in our books.