Zenas Leonard was a white fur trader under the command of his lieutenant Joseph Walker. Along with forty other men, Zenas Leonard traveled to the Great Basin in search of beavers which were widely sought after for their fur. During their excavation, the fur traders set up beaver traps along the Humboldt River. By morning they would always find that Natives, or Indians, had stolen their traps. This led to many of the fur traders wanting to seek vengeance on the Indians for ruining their expedition. I believe that this scenario between whites and Indians played a relatively large roll in how the two parties ended up being depicted to one another. Zenas Leonard is only able to recall one side of the encounter, the side of the white fur trader. …show more content…
Leonard’s companions wished revenge on the Indians who had stolen their traps, yet they did not know which Natives had stolen them.
The Great Basin was occupied by both the Shoshone and the Paiute but, Leonard never says that his company ever saw the Indians steal the traps, just that someone did; they did not care to figure out which tribe had stolen their traps, they simply lumped the two into “Indians”. They attacked any Native that came in their path and then feared the Natives retaliating, so continued to attack random groups of Natives in what Leonard recalls as self-defense. However, it was Leonard’s company that referred to the Natives as a “poor and dejected-kind” (8); the only mode of communication between the two were hand signs (10). If the only form of communication between the two parties was hand signaling, how could the fur traders possibly learn or come to understand why the Natives were taking their traps? This is what I believe is the greatest misunderstanding between whites and Natives. There was never a strong form of communication. How could the whites have …show more content…
known that the Natives were possibly saving the beavers from being over hunted as they were several years before? Or that Natives needed the warmth of the beavers fur, their meat to eat, much more than the traders needed their fur to sell? There was no possible way to communicate this misunderstanding. Which is why I believe that Leonard’s company simply acted on fear of the unknown. They did not know the Natives or wish to come closer to people that other Whites often referred to as “savages” (12). What Leonard recalls of the Natives during their encounter does not add much to the argument that the fur traders were merely acting on self-defense and not actions of those who already harbored feelings of disgust towards a group of people.
When the fur traders encountered a Natives man’s hut they had a seemingly calm interaction of trading items for fur. Only Leonard mentioned that the man was “filthy and naked”(8), showing that the outwards appearance of Natives played a role in how a large portion of whites perceived them. When the Natives approached the camp of the fur traders, the whites reacted in paranoia as they believed that the Natives were only there for revenge of their fallen comrades. However, according to Leonard’s recollection of the event, I was lead to believe that the Indians seemed more curious in the company rather than seeking vengeance. Of course, considering the circumstances, being completely surrounded by someone that you believe to be an enemy can be perceived as
threatening. From the short passage of Zenas Leonard’s journey and his interactions with the natives, I came to the conclusion that this sort of encounter must have been quite common. There was no way for whites and Indians to communicate at the time which would only lead to misunderstandings. Whites seemed to be on the side that evolution was a must and the fact that Natives decided to continually live in such a simple way was distasteful, which is how I believe that the term “savages” was coined in reference to Natives. Natives on the other hand only ever saw the violence in whites, as shown by Leonard’s company in the way they handled the Indians who stole their traps. If meetings like these were as common as I believe they were, it is no wonder that whites and Indians never saw eye to eye even years later. Continued misunderstandings would only further the two groups relationship to one another and deepen their differences. This is why Natives became targets of kidnapping, forced marriage, and religious conversion just years after Leonard’s journey. The whites saw Natives as savages and soon decided to change their lives, willingly or not.
Still, the Germans are neglected and the Irish exploited, language barrier continued to cause strife and distrust. However, when English news was subsequently translated into German, sentiments of exploitation and desertion became a backdrop and they started seeing other in a new way. Democracy was birthed as more power was shared among ethnicities in the “back country”. The increased intensity of the Indian savagery opened the eyes to the whites and they sought to put their previous irreconcilable differences in the shade. To a degree, they consciously realized that they have a common enemy and they could wield their communities to attack the “red race”. There was a significant shift in their belief, the creator created differently so that they could live distinctly. Familiarity does not necessarily arise from living in close proximity with each other, and Silver constantly argued this throughout his book. The idea of White’s middle ground never came into existence at this point in history in Pennsylvania, as racial consciousness emerged and developed. The Irish, Germans and other Europeans saw themselves whites and the Indians as red, they built inter-white middle ground here, not Indian-white. They did not actually forget or bury their differences and ignore its existence, but they, to a certain extent found tolerance and little “accommodation” between their other white
In The White Man’s Indian, Robert Berkhoffer analyzes how Native Americans have maintained a negative stereotype because of Whites. As a matter of fact, this book examines the evolution of Native Americans throughout American history by explaining the origin of the Indian stereotype, the change from religious justification to scientific racism to a modern anthropological viewpoint of Native Americans, the White portrayal of Native Americans through art, and the policies enacted to keep Native Americans as Whites perceive them to be. In the hope that Native Americans will be able to overcome how Whites have portrayed them, Berkhoffer is presenting
Cronon raises the question of the belief or disbelief of the Indian’s rights to the land. The Europeans believed the way Indians used the land was unacceptable seeing as how the Indians wasted the natural resources the land had. However, Indians didn’t waste the natural resources and wealth of the land but instead used it differently, which the Europeans failed to see. The political and economical life of the Indians needed to be known to grasp the use of the land, “Personal good could be replaced, and their accumulation made little sense for ecological reasons of mobility,” (Cronon, 62).
They further saw the Indians as lazy people since they would not settle down at a place and develop the land they inhabited, there by missing out on profit opportunities and life improvement. On the other way round, the setllers cherished the natural resources because of the market value it possessed and not because of it immediate need. This made the settlers depict the Indians as poor and incompetent to maximize the transformation of these natural resources into economic gains and wealth.
Growing up Black Elk and his friends were already playing the games of killing the whites and they waited impatiently to kill and scalp the first Wasichu, and bring the scalp to the village showing how strong and brave they were. One could only imagine what were the reasons that Indians were bloody-minded and brutal to the whites. After seeing their own villages, where...
Each European country treated the Native Americans distinctively and likewise the diverse Native Americans tribes reacted differently. The vast majority of the tribes didn’t wish to overtake the Europeans, but to rather just maintain their status quo. Moreover, Axtell mentions that during the inaugural stages of the encounter, the relationship between the two parties was rather peaceful since the Europeans were outnumbered by the natives. Axtell depicts that unlike the Europeans, the Native Americans treated the strangers equally or superior to themselves. The Indians would welcome the Europeans into their towns and shower them with gifts and blessings. The relationship between the two factions was going serene until the cultural differences became a burden on both
The stress of this caused their once coveted friendship to wither and morph into an ill hatred. The English began a campaign of the demonization of Native Americans. The image of Native Americans was described in Red, White, & Black as friendly traders who shared a mutually beneficial relationship with one another. Evidently, a very different image started to appear when land disputes arose. The new illustration the English painted was that Native American people were “comparable to beasts” and “wild and savage people, that live like heards of deare in a forrest”. It was sudden change of heart between the two societies that supports Waterhouse’s claims of the changing relationship of the English and Native
According to Deloria, there are many misconceptions pertaining to the Indians. He amusingly tells of the common White practice of ...
The Cree people have a rich and diverse history. Through methods of written and oral teachings, a greater understanding of the Cree people and their history has become apparent. In the following, I will highlight portions of Cree history to establish an understanding of such a rich culture. As a guide, I will use ideas highlighted in Jim Kanepetew’s (n.d) teachings of “The Ten Treaty Sticks”. Underlying concepts from “The Ten Treaty Sticks” have implications on both past and current practices of the Cree people. Since a large portion of the final exam is a chronological list of happenings, I will examine and extend the teachings of “The Ten Treaty Sticks” and how these align with teachings throughout the course. Using “The Ten Treaty Sticks” as a guide, I
Eastman has not fully assimilated into the white culture. He still holds onto his Native American culture. When American Horse asks Eastman of his opinion regarding the uprising, Eastman ponders before he answers, “thanks to Indian etiquette” (718). This signifies that Eastman has still allied himself with Native American culture, though he does not support all their causes. Eastman was among the more Anglicized of the Native Americans; he had “lately put all his faith in the Christian love and lofty ideals of the white man” (723). His faith in those ideals was shaken by the “ordeal” (723), but Eastman is still grounded and knit to his native culture.
According to Nicholson, encounters between explorers, such as Christopher Columbus and Henry Hudson, and Native Americans were always friendly. There was no “expression of hostility based on physical appearance” (Nicholson 15) between the two
The movement westward during the late 1800’s created new tensions among already strained relations with current Native American inhabitants. Their lands, which were guaranteed to them via treaty with the United States, were now beginning to be intruded upon by the massive influx of people migrating from the east. This intrusion was not taken too kindly, as Native American lands had already been significantly reduced due to previous westward conquest. Growing resentment for the federal government’s Reservation movement could be felt among the native population. One Kiowa chief’s thoughts on this matter summarize the general feeling of the native populace. “All the land south of the Arkansas belongs to the Kiowas and Comanches, and I don’t want to give away any of it” (Edwards, 203). His words, “I don’t want to give away any of it”, seemed to a mantra among the Native Americans, and this thought would resound among them as the mounting tensions reached breaking point.
For example, in the local school, stereotypes such as the image of the ‘wild man’ are consolidated by claiming that there was cannibalism among the indigenous people of the northwest coast (Soper-Jones 2009, 20; Robinson 2010, 68f.). Moreover, native people are still considered to be second-class citizens, which is pointed out by Lisamarie’s aunt Trudy, when she has been harassed by some white guys in a car: “[Y]ou’re a mouthy Indian, and everyone thinks we’re born sluts. Those guys would have said you were asking for it and got off scot-free”
In Luther Standing Bear’s “Nature” and Louis Owens’s “The American Indian Wilderness”, the authors dictate differences in Indian and white relationships with nature. They stress how Indians see nature, their balanced relationship with it, and how they know wilderness is just a European idea. While agreeing here, Standing Bear focuses on the Lakota view of how Indians truly lived while Owens reveals both sides and thinks white views can shift with time.
The Native Americans or American Indians, once occupied all of the entire region of the United States. They were composed of many different groups, who speaked hundreds of languages and dialects. The Indians from the Southwest used to live in large built terraced communities and their way of sustain was from the agriculture where they planted squash, pumpkins, beans and corn crops. Trades between neighboring tribes were common, this brought in additional goods and also some raw materials such as gems, cooper. seashells and soapstone.To this day, movies and television continue the stereotype of Indians wearing feathered headdresses killing innocent white settlers. As they encountered the Europeans, automatically their material world was changed. The American Indians were amazed by the physical looks of the white settlers, their way of dressing and also by their language. The first Indian-White encounter was very peaceful and trade was their principal interaction. Tension and disputes were sometimes resolved by force but more often by negotiation or treaties. On the other hand, the Natives were described as strong and very innocent creatures awaiting for the first opportunity to be christianized. The Indians were called the “Noble Savages” by the settlers because they were cooperative people but sometimes, after having a few conflicts with them, they seem to behaved like animals. We should apprehend that the encounter with the settlers really amazed the natives, they were only used to interact with people from their own race and surroundings and all of this was like a new discovery for them as well as for the white immigrants. The relations between the English and the Virginian Indians was somewhat strong in a few ways. They were having marriages among them. For example, when Pocahontas married John Rolfe, many said it has a political implication to unite more settlers with the Indians to have a better relation between both groups. As for the Indians, their attitude was always friendly and full of curiosity when they saw the strange and light-skinned creatures from beyond the ocean. The colonists only survived with the help of the Indians when they first settler in Jamestown and Plymouth. In this areas, the Indians showed the colonists how to cultivate crops and gather seafood.The Indians changed their attitude from welcome to hostility when the strangers increased and encroached more and more on hunting and planting in the Natives’ grounds.