Category: Writers Block
Summary
Word Count: 1742 words
Professor Jane Tompkins of Duke University, who specializes in English' wrote the article "`Indians'`: Textualism, Morality, And The Problem Of History." She writes the article about Native Americans in order to summarize and explain her research process and findings about relations between European Settlers and Native Americans. Her intended audience is her peer researchers, professors and scholars, and students of who are interested in reading such an article. The article's essence is that point of view affects ideas, and that people must be more open to different perspectives, because there won't ever be an unbiased account. Everyone brings a cultural bias into his writings and readings. Tompkins discusses how biases and perspectives in writings may clash. Because I have been involved in the media production process for three years, I can relate to Tompkins' conclusion.
She became interested in this field, similar to most school children, by studying Native Americans through literature and accounts. Tompkins (1986) recollects as children they felt proud because they knew the cost of Manhattan Island and "Peter Minuit had bought Manhattan Island from the Indians for twenty-four dollars' worth of glass beads" (para. 2). Yearly in her childhood, she visited Inwood Park to view Native Americans and their caves. Throughout these trip, she fantasized about Native Americans and their ancient ways, which is the way most view Native Americans, but is a false view. This is the reason that most are confused about Native Americans. She mentions one of the sources she had read by Deloria, who claims that people are not paying attention to what is happening to Native Americans in present day America. She started her research, consequently discovering the confusion, that sources were contradictory. She determined by merely deciphering, which account was true and which would be impossible. Her final conclusion 'it that nobody is unbiased or could claim relativism as their conclusion, thus leaving the problem unsolved. Further analysis is necessary, and people must be open-minded. however, they must decide which to believe by retaining pieces of each source and fitting them into a whole. People must investigate who the author is and why he wrote the piece. Tompkins (1986) states, "all facts are only facts within (which) a perspective has the effect of emptying statements of their content" (para 39).
Tompkins' research began by investigating secondary sources. Her first source, Perry Miller, a historian who didn't believe that Native Americans were important, claims that America was a "vacant wilderness" (Miller, 1956, as cited in Tompkins, 1986, para. 7). He saw America based on oil and white people. He considered Native Americans inconsequential; thus he mostly discusses White settlers in his work. His European background may have influenced his world views of White culture dominating the world. After Miller, she examins Alden Vaughn, whose claims seemed well documented, opened to fresh ideas, balanced, unbiased, and straightforward; however, later she finds that his views are skewed, as he too comes from a white background. Also, Helen Hunt Jackson wrote a book, which Vaughn read as well, detailing how cruel Whites were to the Native Americans. He believed that Europeans were humane and Native Americans, uncivilized. Tompkins then, read Francis Jennings, whose arguments were thoroughly supported, and who believed that the Puritans were ruthless and the Native Americans innocent, because Puritans harmed and were dishonest to Native Americans, for selfish motives. Native Americans were murdered not by their own fault, but because settlers wanted to gain land. Jennings, despite seeming correct, was not unchallenged. The ninetteen-seventies brought civil rights, which helped Native Americans sue for rights and misrepresentation; thus, many writers such as James Axtell focused on the Native American's views. Native Americans were complex, smart beings and Europeans brought change that confused them. Also, Calvin Martin detailed how animals connected with spirits. Native Americans performed tasks demonstrating to spirits that they desired the animals before hunting and' afterwards' respectfully dispose of the animals' remains. Therefore, Native Americans shared a bond with animals. When settlers arrived, new diseases sickened the wildlife, and animals were exploited, because Native Americans desired more trinkets. After Martin wrote his book, Shepard Krech and Charles Hudson wrote to contradict and criticize Martin's view. They argued that Martin examined the situation from the Native American's perspective, but, the Europeans' perspective would have been more useful as they conquered and forced their beliefs on the Native Americans. Also, Native American culture already permitted them to capture and slaughter animals. Their depended on such slaughter, because settlers had taken a majority of the land, so in order to survive, Native Amerians had to trade something only they could produce, which was animals. Later, she read Karen Kupperman, who believed the English looked down on Native Americans because they were looking down at each other and Natives were not being judged for being savages. White settlers looked at Natie American from the outside, never from the inside.
She decided to examine secondary sources of that period instead, because of indecisive twentieth century writers. Berkofer, who interpreted primary sources, reasoned that different people perceived the world differently, because backgrounds differed. She had already looked at Winthrop, who was the governor of Massachusetts, who didn't see how Native Americans mattered. She first examined Alice who portrayed the Native's captivity process luxuriously. Yet Axtell and Heard detailed capture as being unpleasant. Children were subjected to harsh conditions while traveling, experienced brutal exercises upon arrival for admissions to the tribe, and if enslaved were treated inhumanely. The confusion made her wish to examine primary sources. She first read Rowlandson who's method of explaining everything was through religion. When she was brought to the chief, King Phillip, she only thought about how awful smoking was. Rowlandson states, "it seems to be a Bait, the Devil 'ayes to make men loose their precious time: I remember with shame, how formerly, when I had taken two or three pipes, I was presently ready for another, such a bewitching thing it is" (Rowlandson, 1860, as cited in Tompkins, 1686, para. 29). as if that was the most important issue at hand. Lastly, she viewed two additional primary sources. Captivity journals didn't help, thus she examined Wood, who attempted to attract people to the United States and praises the Native Americans in turn demonstrating how great and friendly they were. However, then she read a pamphlet by Whitaker, a missionary, that explained how evil, ungodly, ugly, and sinful they were.
In terms of my own personal opinion to this particular article "`Indians,` Textualism, Morality, And The Problem Of History," which I have summarized above. I agree with Tompkins' argument about people having differing views and never being unbiased. We all live a life of our own and will perceive things differently. We do not all see the world and different situations the same way. Different people will always have differing accounts, which is what makes the world most interesting. If it was not that way societies would become bland.
Consequentially, truths takes on many various forms. As what may be truths for me, may not be truths for Joe. We see the world through our lens and what I think I see, he may not. Truths also varies according to situations. What may be truth now may not be truth later on. What is truth in one place may not be so correct in another.
I clearly remember, when once, I was on the school
newspaper staff, one year, when a woman had eight babies, our journalism team decided that we had to write an article about her. So one girl was assign to the particular article. She was to write the piece about the Octo-Mom and what resources were available so that people may help her. In turn, this became the most amusing piece for that particular issue, providing the journalism team many laughs, because of her background and views. In the article, she sounded as if she was trying to sell the Octo-Mom, promoting all the resource as a sells man would, and persuasive sold the charities by saying that one could pay them in many way, so that it would be easy, that one should help. It was almost as if she was trying to help her beg for money. This girl clearly had a passion about these issues and wanted to help promote the resources and to place it out there to aid this lady, so she sold the Octo-Mom or that particular news article sounded as if she did. However, if I was to write it the article would sound completely different as I am a conservative. I would have stated how despite not being stable she still had the babies and insisted on raising them. How nobody should be on welfare as she chose to have these babies and it shouldn't be anyone else's financial responsibility. The conservative view would sound less persuasive and more about deterring such behavior. This relates to Tompkins' article because this also shows how perspective clash.
We were always told to write without biases, and that we couldn't have our views, both inside and outside the journalism classroom. I also remember that, it was awfully difficult, almost impossible when I wrote for the news or school related columns to be objective. On many English reports, I could not either. Even if, I balanced out the masterpiece with both sides, I found that, I still had a bit of a writer's bias.
Humans are natural thinkers and every thinker has a side and will defend it. If you think and can't defend your thoughts then you are not a true thinker and will need to learn that skill set. No matter if you like it or not. People who think that they could write a completely objective paper, tell an unbiased account, or so forth clearly have not really tried to do it. Anyone who tries, know that it is impossible. Another possibility, is they are so self centered and arrogant that they do not see past their nose, thus, they think their views are the views of being unbiased because they are always right.
references
Tompkins, J. (1986). "Indians": Textualism, Morality, and the Problem of History. critical inquiry 13(1),