The early settlement of America was a complex process within which people endured many challenges, including the hardship of merely surviving in a new environment. Among the perceived threats that the newcomers faced when arriving at the promised land was the presence of Native groups that resided there longer. However, the settlers began infringing on the territories that used to belong to Natives, which caused a significant deterioration in relationships between the groups. Thus, historical accounts of the events of that time could be highly valuable for understanding the relations between the Natives and the settlers of America.
Therefore, Cabeza de Vaca and Mary Rowlandson’s writings offer insight into their relationships. The review of the two authors’ tests can help understand the potential difference in their ideologies and attitudes toward having to interact with the Natives. While both narrators endured captivity, Cabeza de Vaca gradually learned to admire their culture, Rowlandson’s view was utterly opposite due to her religious beliefs and the inability to grasp the true impact of colonization.
Rowlandson’s story is famous for the narrative of her being forcefully taken into captivity by Native Americans, which she told from a first-hand account. The general approach she took in “A Narrative of the Captivity and Restoration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson” implied the description of Natives as savages, providing detailed accounts of her treatment. Most notably, the overbearing trust in faith and the continuous references to captivity as her pilgrimage sets her narrative apart. It should be noted that Rowlandson adhered to Puritanism, which is among the strictest Christian denominations, characterized by the intense religious experiences it fosters. Puritans believed they must be in a covenant relationship with God to be redeemed from their sins; thus, they must be continuously preaching and viewing every life experience through the lens of faith that positions them as sinners in need of salvation.
At every point of the story and with every event, Rowlandson mentions that she prays for herself, thus encouraging God to do the right thing for her (Hall 52). Adhering to her faith, the author uses providence to justify her capture but blames those who restricted her freedom (Toulouse 656).
Throughout the entire narrative, readers are continuously exposed to the critical role that her religion played in the conflict. As mentioned by Lougheed, “when the Indians are kind to her, she attributes the good fortune to divine Providence; when they are cruel, she blames her captors” (289). In psychology, this is called the fundamental attribution error, which refers to the tendency of a person to attribute another’s action to their personality and character while attributing behavior to external situation factors they cannot control. Rowlandson’s attitude represents a fundamental pattern of the entire story, expressed in the following way: “I can but admire to see the wonderful providence of God in preserving the heathen for further affliction to our poor country” (Rowlandson). The strict reliance on faith throughout the experience of captivity enables a biased look at all events.
It is interesting that when she is safe, and everything goes well, Rowlandson does not mention faith but only focuses on the terrible situation that happened to her. In her eyes, the Natives intentionally took her home and family away to make her suffer, and she continuously plays with this idea. Thus, at every point in the story, Rowlandson always feels and expresses hostility toward the Native Americans even though she has faith in God. The biased view of the population was tainted by her religion, thus creating the negative view of them as savages, furthering the hatred toward them. The self-centered and personalized account of Rowlandson’s experience does not include considerations of King Phillip’s War taking place during her captivity. She did not recognize that Natives had their last attempt at preventing British colonists from capturing their land and settling there long-term.
In contrast to Rowlandson’s account of captivity, Cabeza de Vaca, who was also denied his freedom, has a different view of the experience in “RelaciĂłn.” In his writings, he tries to connect his struggles to the challenges that the Natives endured: “the great hardships we had endured would be finished, for our road had been long and bad, and we had endured great hunger” (de Vaca 9). Even though he is initially captured by them, as the narrative progresses, he soon becomes one of them, relying his survival on the survival of the group.
While there is a theme of providence in the story, it is not as overbearing as in the account given by Rowlandson: “We nevertheless never lost confidence in the idea that God our Lord would provide the surest relief” (de Vaca 22).
Therefore, there is no blaming of Natives or descriptions of them as savages in de Vaca’s account; instead, he has pity toward them and wants to help change their situation, while Rowlandson only shows hatred. Such a difference from Rowlandson’s perception may be attributed to the difference between Puritanism and Catholicism, with the latter having a strong message of forgiveness and redemption through belief in God. Notably, he understands that the settlers caused a disruption to the life of Native people and hopes for things to change for the better. In contrast, Rowlandson never acknowledged such disruptions, nor did she note the causes and effects of King Phillip’s War in regard to the relationships between Natives and settlers. On the other hand, De Vaca does not feel he is above the Aboriginal population and understands that all people are victims of their situation.
De Vaca’s narrative is significantly different from Rowlandson’s because it shows progression and transformation. He acknowledges the fact that he should depend on the Indians to survive, which causes some slight changes in his perspective as the days pass. Even though the author has faith in God, it does not make him feel that it prevents him from understanding the experiences of Indians and that they have a lot in common (Goodman 238).
When colonizers came to their land and forcefully took it, it made the Indians hostile, which is understandable as any population, regardless of their ethnic background, could react in a similar way (Adorno 166). Today, international law ensures respect for the borders of other countries, thus making the crossing of such borders and the occupation of the lands a crime. However, such laws did not apply at the time of America’s colonization, but it does not mean that the people whose land was being taken could remain neutral to newcomers.
When discussing the reason why the two authors in captivity developed different perspectives of Native Americans, the main point of contention lies in their personal approaches to the situation. De Vaca’s openness to the experience and the belief that God would inevitably help him get released allowed him to look at the Natives as people who had their own problems (Hickerson 206). The captured did not make the experience all about him but instead acknowledged that all people struggle. In contrast, Rowlandson did not keep an open mind and made her faith the focus of the experience, which made her restricted in the perception of the Natives, thus painting an overall negative picture. The difference in perceptions shows that individual characteristics play a significant role in shaping the attitudes of a person.
The texts by Rowlandson and de Vaca provide an insight into how the settlers of American land interacted with the Native people who resided there long before their arrival. Notably, both of the authors are religious and connect their experiences to the providence of God, although in different ways. While Rowlandson examined the harsh reality of her situation but failed to show any sympathy toward the population who captured her, Cabeza de Vaca was much more understanding to his captors, showing that compassion could lead to a more righteous path, thus building closer relationships between the Natives and the newcomers to their land.
The two accounts differed as a result of either lack or presence of understanding of the reasons for King Phillip’s War, with Rowlandson never even mentioning it and de Vaca acknowledging the background factors causing the Natives’ reactions. Finally, both writings share the message of providence; however, the severity of Rowlandson’s Puritanism did not allow her to look at the situation without a religious lens. In de Vaca’s account, which was written from the Catholic perspective, providence is viewed as a will of God, but such that cannot overturn human nature.
Works Cited
Adorno, Rolena. “The Negotiation of Fear in Cabeza de Vaca’s Naufragios.” Representations, vol. 33, 1991, pp. 163-199.
De Vaca, Cabeza. “Relation. Shipwrecks of Alvar Nuñez Cabeza De Vaca and the Account of the Journey He Made to Florida with Governor Panfilo De Narvaez.” Exhibits Library. Web.
Goodman, Nan. “Mercantilism and Cultural Difference in Cabeza de Vaca’s Relación.” Early American Literature, vol. 40, no. 2, 2005, pp. 229-250.
Hall, Susan. “Re-visioning Captivity: Louis Erdrich and Sherman Alexie Respond to Mary Rowlandson’s Narrative.” North Dakota Quarterly, pp. 46-69.
Hickerson, Nancy. “How Cabeza De Vaca Lived with, Worked among, and Finally Left the Indians of Texas.” Journal of Anthropological Research, vol. 54, no. 2, 1998, pp. 199-218.
Lougheed, Pamela. ““Then Began He to Rant and Threaten”: Indian Malice and Individual Liberty in Mary Rowlandson’s Captivity Narrative.” American Literature, vol. 74, no. 2, 2002, pp. 287-313.
Rowlandson, Mary. “Narrative of the Captivity and Restoration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson.” Gutenberg, 2009. Web.
Toulouse, Teresa. ““My Own Credit: Strategies of (E)Valuation in Mary Rowlandson’s Captivity Narrative.” American Literature, vol. 64, no. 2, 1992, pp. 655-676.