The Representation of the brush between white settlers-invaders and autochthonal peoples in Jeannette Armstrong’s “History Lesson” and Susanna Moodie’s Rough ining it in the Bush differ greatly in a figure of ways. Writing at different times. for conflicting intents. from opposing points of position every bit good as utilizing different literary mediums- the ensuing representation of the brush between the white and autochthonal groups are inherently contrasting.
Depicted as a lesser. more barbarous race in Rough ining it in the Bush every bit good as the victims of savageness and ‘civilisation’ in “History Lesson” .
Native representation in the two plants are peculiarly dissimilar. nevertheless settler attitudes in both are based upon discriminatory and racialist ideals of the clip. and this can be seen in their brush. The function of faith besides helped determine the natives’ brush with the colonists. it is presented in a ludicrous manner in “History Lesson” every bit good as in a slightly nescient manner in Rough ining it in the shrub.
Despite her at times minimizing linguistic communication. Moodie does show some regard and grasp of the Natives’ features. an involvement that is non-existent in “History Lesson” . nevertheless despite her just mindedness. her sentiments are still tinged with racism and an authoritarian white –supremacist sentiment. Writing about her experiences in the 1830’s in Canada. Susanna Moodie’s Rough ining it in the Bush is an history of life as a female colonist at the clip.
Published as a usher to Britons sing emigrating. her authorship is ethnographic.
analyzing assorted groups such as those immigrating to Canada. the colonists in Canada every bit good as the autochthonal Natives. In the Chapter “The Wilderness & A ; our Indian Friends” . Moodie is confronted for the first clip with Native Americans. whom she describes as “a people whose beauty. endowments. and good qualities have been slightly overrated. and invested with a poetical involvement which they barely deserve.
” As her first vocalization associating to the Natives. this sentiment serves to be instead belittling and surprising. As she believes they have received excessively much “poetical interest” . and their evident positive qualities “overrated” . Moodie goes on to compose. “Their honestness and love of truth are the finest traits in characters otherwise dark and unlovely. ” Despite an effort at complimentary authorship. her Language here is extremely minimizing toward the Natives. and in their brush it is clear she sees herself superior to them.
Her usage of “dark” refers to their cryptic personality every bit good potentially their skin color. The air of white colonist high quality nowadays in Rough ining it in the shrub is drastically magnified in Jeannette Armstrong’s verse form “History Lesson” . nevertheless the White persons are portrayed as inferior in footings of actions. In contrast to Moodie. Armstrong is composing from the Native’s point of position. telling the invasion of the white encroachers following Christopher Columbus’s initial expedition to the Americas.
Her composing serves as a counter-history. supplying a version of events from the Natives position that have throughout history been seen as barbarous enemies of civilisation. It is argued. “Throughout recorded clip. empowered groups have been able to specify history and supply an account of the present. A good illustration of this is the portraiture of wars between Indians and White by Canadian historiographers. ” It is this impression of white ruling history that Armstrong challenges in “History Lesson” . In the first stanza. Armstrong writes ;
Out of the abdomen of Christopher’s ship a rabble bursts Runing in all waies Pulling furs off animate beings Shooting American bison Shooting each other left and right Armstrong ironically depicts the white encroachers as barbarians in this stanza. with small to state between them and animate beings such as the American bison referred to in line 5. Christopher Columbus’s “discovery” of the Americas is whittled down to one line. Using really informal linguistic communication. “belly” and “Christopher’s ship” denotes a peculiarly non-impressive image unlike most word pictures of his ocean trip in white histories.
The usage of the word “mob” conjures beastly intensions once more frequently attributed to Native Americans. Equally good as picturing the brush between Natives and white encroachers. Armstrong besides indicates the oncoming consequences of colonising on the Natives’ land. “Pulling off furs” every bit good as literally diagrammatically picturing the barbarian nature of the Whites when runing animate beings. besides refers to the fur trade set up following colonisation of Canada. The mindless brutality continues with the shot of American bison every bit good as shot of each other.
The deficiency of definition between the two. and the insouciant nature of the lines highlights the Whites animalistic and barbarous nature. every bit good as the deficiency of integrity between the European colonists. In this stanza “Jeannette Armstrong conveys the force of abstraction of “Colonialism” by telescoping it into a graphic imitation of huffy physical activity” . In contrast to “History Lesson” where the Whites are judged on their actions. in Rough ining it in the Bush Moodie ab initio analyses the Natives visual aspect and common traits. Moodie provinces. “The work forces of this folk are by and large little of stature. with really harsh and abhorrent characteristics.
” Following this entirely deprecating description. there is a continuance of animate being like comparings “the detecting modules big. the rational 1s barely developed ; the ears big. and standing off from the face ; the eyes looking towards the temples. lament. snake-like” In both literary texts. the opposing group is represented as animalistic. albeit metaphorically in “History Lesson” and much more literally in Rough ining it in the Bush. Using important linguistic communication throughout. Moodie seems to be speaking down to the Native peoples.
Her ceaseless insisting on mentioning to the Native peoples. within which there were 55 different linguistic communications and legion folks. as “Indians” besides shows a clear deficiency of desire in larning the civilization. a white attitude typical of “History lesson” every bit good. Although being an advocator of peace. her apprehension of the nature of white- native dealingss seems slightly off. Representing the pickings of Native land as being “Passed into the custodies of strangers” . suggests it was peaceable and non questioned. due to the inactive verb “passed” .
However this is entirely contrasting with “History Lesson” in which the truer nature of the struggle is depicted. Religion plays a important function in both word pictures of the brush between white colonists and the indigens. Christianity. and the manner in which it was thrust upon the Natives is mocked in “History Lesson” . whilst Moodie finds the Natives’ apprehension of the faith lacking. despite her entire deficiency of cognition of the Natives’ spiritualty. Armstrong writes. “Father average good? waves his stopgap wand forgives round-eyed Indians”
Mentioning to a Priest as “Father mean well” is a sarcastic simplification of English footings. proposing his purposes are good but small else. “Waves his stopgap wand” is a peculiarly unusual manner of depicting a rood. with “wand” proposing its charming as opposed to spiritual. Writing from a Native point of position nevertheless it is clear intending given to such objects mean small to those that do non imply such significances. and Armstrong instills in the reader the apprehension that Christianity in the oculus of the Natives is about ludicrous.
In the self-deprecating line “forgives round-eyed Indians” Armstrong twists racism about. with her fellow Natives the abused in order to demo its true ignorance. Moodie in comparing. composing for her place countrymen. reacts angrily in what she perceives every bit excessively much of a captivation with a adult male made blade. “For several yearss they continued to see the house. conveying along with them some fresh comrade to look at Mrs. Moodie’s God! –until. annoyed and annoyed by the delectation they manifested at the sight of the eagle-beaked monster. I refused to satisfy their wonder by non bring forthing him once more.
” Moodie represents the indigens as nescient and naif. nevertheless her choler at their involvement shows her close-mindedness in footings of religion. This can be seen once more when Moodie writes “Their thoughts of Christianity appeared to me obscure and unsatisfactory. They will state you that Christ died for work forces. and that He is the Saviour of the World. but they do non look to grok the religious character of Christianity. nor the full extent of the demands and application of the jurisprudence of Christian love.
” Both literary texts are likewise in that Native comprehension of Christianity is missing. nevertheless it is of class non they’re chosen religion and so this is apprehensible. Mentions to the Garden of Eden can be found in both texts. as Armstrong writes “Somewhere among the remains of skinless animate beings is the expiration? to a long journey and unhallowed hunt for the power glimpsed in a garden forever closed everlastingly lost” Armstrong likens the new universe to the Garden of Eden. another signifier of Utopia disturbed by human action.
Despite clear efforts at conveying Christianity to the Natives. she refers to the whole ordeal as “unholy” . owing to the awful actions of the colonists. Moodie’s find of the countries natural beauty and naming of already known stones and other objects is besides similar to the scriptural narrative. Yet Moodie sees herself as Eve. as opposed to the destroyer of it. In “History Lesson” there are several recognitions of the weaknesss of Colonization and Capitalism that are to come following the brush between Whites and Natives. As Armstrong writes “Pioneers and bargainers bring gifts Smallpox. Seagrams and rice krispies”
She once more references the Bible. with the likelihood to the birth of Christ and the three Kings. However the gifts are awful. unwellness. alcohol addiction and peculiarly insubstantial modern nutrient that of no usage and no demand to the Native with their established diet. Typifying her statement. she states “Civilization has reached the promised land” like the unashamed nature of advertisement. Armstrong ironically includes the tagline “snap. crackling and pop” to exemplify the inutility to Natives White/US civilization has become.
The desolation continues as in stanza 7 she writes “The giant? in which they trust while burying take a breathing woods and Fieldss beneath concrete and steel stand agitating fists waiting to mangle whole civilisations ten coevalss at a blow” The brush between the Whites and Natives is represented as lost. for the natural admiration of the state is buried “beneath concrete and steel” . with “whole civilisations. 10 coevalss at a blow” ready to be mutilated.
Despite cases of missing understanding and credence on Susanna Moodie’s portion in Rough ining it in the Bush of the Natives and their beliefs and characters. she does exhibit some tolerance and recognition of their many accomplishments and positive qualities.
As Moodie provinces. “The fondness of Indian parents to their kids. and the respect which they pay to the aged. is another beautiful and touching trait in their character. ” Her brushs with them are represented as peaceable and humbling. as she notes their humbleness in having nutrient “The Indians are great impersonators. and possess a nice tact in following the imposts and manners of those with whom they associate. ” However despite her sort rhetoric. her superior racist attitude frequently prevails. “During better times we had treated these hapless barbarians with kindness and liberality” .
Frequently excessively happy to return to the usage of “savages” . she surely does non give the Natives much regard as is due. much like the brush in “History Lesson” . As J R Miller writes. “the ethnographic attack to the survey of autochthonal peoples was debatable because it was a descriptive portraiture that rendered Natives inactive and unchanging. ” This is the instance with Moodie’s portraiture of the indigens. as it is clear their manner of life is seen as backward in her authorship. Much of this nevertheless is to make with the birthplace environing Rough ining it in the Bush.
However the brush between the different groups in her authorship is peaceable. intriguing and surely non every bit black as in “History Lesson” . In both texts the common subjects of misinterpretations. faith and racism arise and aid to determine the representation of the brush between the white and native groups. with two really different word pictures of the brush and its effects. Bibliography Susanna Moodie. Rough ining it in the shrub. The wilderness & A ; Our Indian Friends. Canada. 1851.
James S Fridered. Native Peoples in Canada- Contemporary Conflicts. Canada. 1988 Jeannette C Armstrong & A ; Lally Grauer. Native Poetry in Canada- A Contemporary Anthology. Canada. 2001 J R Miller. Contemplations on Native Newcomer Relations-Selected Essays. 2004. Canada Jeannette C Armstrong. History Lesson Native Poetry in Canada- A Contemporary Anthology. Canada. 2001 I was able to derive farther penetration into the subject of white settler/Native dealingss utilizing the book ‘Native peoples in Canada-contemporary conflicts” .
I was able to larn more of the manner in which the history between these two groups has been documented. and this in bend enabled me to further understand the representation of the brush between them in the two literary texts. I found this book in the library. Native poesy in Canada enabled me to better understand the significance of Armstrong’s initial stanza. I found this utilizing Google books. J R Miller’s book. Contemplations on Native Newcomer Relations once more enabled me to better understand the historical certification of native/white dealingss in Canada.
Again I found this in the library. ——————————————– [ 1 ] . Susanna Moodie. Rough ining it in the shrub. The wilderness & A ; Our Indian Friends. Canada. 1851 [ 2 ] . Susanna Moodie. Rough ining it in the shrub. The wilderness & A ; Our Indian Friends. Canada. 1851 [ 3 ] . James S Fridered. Native Peoples in Canada- Contemporary Conflicts. Canada. 1988. p4 [ 4 ] . Jeannette C Armstrong & A ; Lally Grauer. Native Poetry in Canada- A Contemporary Anthology. Canada. 2001. p 24 [ 5 ] . Susanna Moodie. Rough ining it in the shrub. The wilderness & A ; Our Indian Friends. Canada. 1851 [ 6 ] .
Susanna Moodie. Rough ining it in the shrub. The wilderness & A ; Our Indian Friends. Canada. 1851 [ 7 ] . Susanna Moodie. Rough ining it in the shrub. The wilderness & A ; Our Indian Friends. Canada. 1851 [ 8 ] . Susanna Moodie. Rough ining it in the shrub. The wilderness & A ; Our Indian Friends. Canada. 1851 [ 9 ] . Jeannette C Armstrong. History Lesson Native Poetry in Canada- A Contemporary Anthology. Canada. 2001 [ 10 ] . Jeannette C Armstrong. History Lesson Native Poetry in Canada- A Contemporary Anthology. Canada. 2001 [ 11 ] .
Jeannette C Armstrong. History Lesson Native Poetry in Canada- A Contemporary Anthology. Canada. 2001 [ 12 ] . Susanna Moodie. Rough ining it in the shrub. The wilderness & A ; Our Indian Friends. Canada. 1851 [ 13 ] . Susanna Moodie. Rough ining it in the shrub. The wilderness & A ; Our Indian Friends. Canada. 1851 [ 14 ] . Susanna Moodie. Rough ining it in the shrub. The wilderness & A ; Our Indian Friends. Canada. 1851 [ 15 ] . J R Miller. Contemplations on Native Newcomer Relations-Selected Essays. 2004. Canada. p16.