Crevecoeur's Story of a Perfect Utopia

Crevecoeur 5 story” speaks of a perfect utopia with no flaws. He leaves out countless realities of life at the time, particularly concerning Native Americans and slaves. I do seem to find major weaknesses in his writing, and am slightly disappointed that he did not touch on some topics that I believe are of huge significance. His piece is, however, noteworthy because it conveys the feelings and spirit of the decedents of European immigrants, According to Crevecoeur, the characteristics of an Eighteenth century American are some of one living in an unheard-of paradise.

He speaks of children happily doing their chores, “fat and frolicsome” (Crevecoeur, Section 55) from a life of no hardships, sadness or uneasiness. In fact, the only problem in this picture-perfect society that he portrays, and it really is not even a problem, is the money you donate to your church. He seems to strain that the men, only living at a width of approximately 200 miles apart, are so very different that you can tell them apart just upon sight.

He seems determined to imply that individuality is rampant across the colony. Also pointing toward, a bitterness that this individuality was denied in Europe. He also comes off as if he is asserting, that in Europe they had nothing and in America they have everything. Which we all know is untrue, There is little confirmation to prove Crevecoeur’s description of Eighteenth century American society. Yes, there was a population of descendants from European immigrants and they did live in North America, however, the facts essentially stop there.

Get quality help now

Sweet V

Verified

Proficient in: Culture

4.9 (984)

“ Ok, let me say I’m extremely satisfy with the result while it was a last minute thing. I really enjoy the effort put in. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

The seemingly flawless life in America makes no mention of things like slavery, He mentions that British America does not have “a despotic prince, a rich abbot, or a mighty lord” (Crevecoeur, Section 56) demanding the things that they have worked for all on their own. Yet, this is exactly what was happening to the slaves Why were the slaves not mentioned?

There were though, a mixture of various populations from different European countries and they had developed distinct characteristics in the different places that they lived. (Brinkley, Page 62; see map description) So what is valid about Crevecoeur’s description you ask? It is only valid for the simple fact that it is his own work. It shows the arrogance and gratification of a British American land ownert Though his writing is not a factual interpretation of how people really lived, but it does show the View point and attitude of a large population of people living in North America at the timer 1 am not trying to demean his work in any way, shape or form. But come on, he noticeably left some things out, Plus he talked his people and fellow immigrants up so much that you would have thought that they had all the godsend in the world and were unstoppable He mentions a superficially minuscule population of Natives, and he also does not recognize anyone who is not from England as an American.

What about the Scotch-Irish, German, Dutch African, etc. (Brinkley, Page 62; see map legend). Why they have not included blows my mind. If someone were to read this, and had no prior knowledge of the Eighteenth century, and was also completely ignorant of the Eighteenth century America, they would have assumed that the Pilgrims somehow quickly liberated themselves of the Natives and they were never seen again. How does that even make sense? No one just pops up somewhere and instantaneously have everything go in their favor. At least not without a bit of a struggle, He even goes as far as to say that North America was eager for people of foreign lands to arrive. How would he personally know this? He does not He is only stating his consolidated opinion from what he has heard among his people and researched, while also seeming to throw out those major moments of history with it.

Whether Crevecoeur wants to admit it or not, you cannot escape the influence of where your ancestors came from. For example; if the Pilgrims had come from the Middle East, they would be speaking Arabic and practicing Islami it seems to be an issue that he cannot convey. He is trying his hardest to condemn any influence from any outside sources. This, in my sole opinion, is far too biased of an author to really get a feeling of what it was like in the Eighteenth century. He mentions no hardships; like disease, starvation, poor water sources, internal conflicts, lack of funding, and basic knowledge on how to grow and navigate the lands Furthermore he does not mention encounters with the Native population or the even the manifestation of slaves He fails to also reference any mistreatment of the Native population, all of which we know to be false Though I am very interested as to why he did not mention these things Was it by choice? How he was brought up?

Was it was because he was a land owner himself and may have salves of his own? Or was it by very high concentration that he spoke nothing but good things of the Eighteenth century? Crevecoeur‘s portrayal of British America is an interesting yet controversial interpretation of life in the Eighteenth century I struggled a lot with trying to decide if I was even counting my centuries correctly, or if I was even thinking straightforward because he seemed to be missing such significant parts of history that we all know today. I believe if he would have at least mentioned that slaves were brought to the Americas and that there were actual live people there before they had arrived, that this piece would have been a far more interesting read Though the facts are more unreliable then not It is still a significant piece because it shows both the lack of knowledge and bliss of descendants of European immigrants.