Return to Course
Housekeeping:
Agenda:
Email Etiquette
Emails are an important part of discourse communities. In college and the professional world, always start with FORMAL emails. Emails should begin with "Dear Professor..., and end with your name (and any contact information that the professor needs).
The texts we've been reading discussing today are primary texts. This is a secondary texts. What's the difference?
Primary texts are original texts, creative works, relics, or artifacts. By contrast, secondary texts are ABOUT primary texts. See "Primary vs Secondary Sources."
Group Work:
Break into groups and discuss Neil White's interpretation of the early encounters between Native Americans and Europeans. What are his main points? What evidence does he use to support these points? Write your answers in the comment box below.
American Encounters
In "Native Americans and Europeans: Early Encounters in the Caribbean," White describes the multifaceted collision of cultures that occurred throughout the world. What are some of the collisions he identifies?
American Cultural Collisions:
- Military
- Political
- Religious
- Economic
I think we often emphasize the military clashes without recognizing that war was only one of the many ways different groups of people were colliding and changing each other.
Group Work: Close Readings
Break into groups and discuss your reactions to this viseral description of war. THEN talk about one or two things that you noticed beyond the battle itself. For example, how is religion used by Underhill? What does this show us about Underhill's feelings?
War and Trauma
The description of the attack at Pequot Fort begins with distant, relatively objective language about military maneuvers (52-53). Once the attack becomes close range - once Underhill is engaging in close combat with the Pequot - the tone and the language changes. First Underhill becomes defensive (53-54) about his position and actions as an officer (I did not ask my men their opinions). He distances himself from those around him. Then we see Underhill becoming conflicted over the loss of life - both English and Pequot. Underhill becomes increasing concerned with the people he is killing, identifying them not just as warriors but also as women and children.
Beneath the brutality of this encounter, what can we learn? Why would Underhill WRITE this? He could have left things out or changed things (and he probably did) - why did he include everything here? What does this do for Underhill? What does this say about the nature of encounters in the Americas?
Making Connections.
White points out the fact that Europeans typically show more respect for Amerindian groups whose political structures resemble those in Europe (i.e. a monarchy or oligarchy, not democratic and theocratic societies). Why do you think this would be? How do we see that idea working in Underhill's account?
War and Religion:
War and violence are traditionally tied to spiritual beliefs and practices, even though these things seem antithetical. War is a place where MANY people (at the same time) confront the reality of life and death and have to come to terms with it. Throughout history, many groups took their deities or representations of those deities to war with them. In the United States, soldiers carried saints' medallions and Bibles into battle.
Underhill uses religion in several places in this account. Underhill's conception of the Divine is probably not the same as anyone in this room (The Antinomians are not an active sect, like the Puritans. Although some people still talk about antinomianism in Christianity and other religions -just as they talk about puritanism- it is discussed as a trend not as a sect or self-identifying sect that I could find). So let's look at Underhill's use of religion as objectively as possible. What is religion DOING here? How does it work in the narrative? How does it work for the author. Break into groups and discuss it for 10 minutes.
Religion as Rhetoric
Look at the allusions to God or the Bible in Bradford's text. How do his religious beliefs function as a rhetorical device in this argument. Does the rhetorical use of something (like religion) negate the spiritual/political/social truth of it?
Rhetorical Strategies:
Rhetorical strategies are argumentative approaches that you've used your entire life (we're just naming things you already recognize).
Ethos: appeal to authority or values (ethics)
- This could be celebrity appeal (the authority of a well now individual).
- This could be an appeal to shared values, such as shared national pride (nationalism)
- This could also be moralistic or religious in nature (the authority of a shared moral/religious belief)
Pathos: appeal to emotion
- This could be anything that excites emotions (either positive or negative).
- For example, the ad that makes you feel insecure about your body image is appeal to your emotions (it generates insecurity and anxiety).
Logos: appeal to rationality or reason (logic)
- This is anything that (appears to be) logical or rational.
- Logos often includes statistics, numbers and quantifiable data.
- Logos and ethos often collide (the rational data is presented by someone who appears to have the credentials to make those claims).
Sex Appeal
- Sex appeal uses sexuality to persuade the audience.
More links for rhetorical appeals:
Pursuing American Spirituality Further:
Here are some other great sources for early American Christian writing. How do these compare with Underhill? With Rowlandson?
More Research in Early Encounters:
- Westford Knight - this is often listed as pseudo-archeology. What do you think about it? Why would people want to create something like this?
Comments (15)
Carah Dalton said
at 11:39 am on Sep 7, 2016
Carah Dalton & Katelyn Dunford
-Remorse and regret when saying the Indians are "Courageous Fellows"
-Remorse and regret when he lights the fort on fire but the other soldier lights the house.
-Revenge when the Indians kill 30 of his men
Why did he choose to write about this?
- To convince himself that what he and his men did is morally correct.
Jara Armstrong said
at 11:40 am on Sep 7, 2016
Jara and Adriana:
The emotions are fairly ambiguous. He praises God but does not seem to have fear when looking back on the situation.
Joshua Beckett said
at 11:40 am on Sep 7, 2016
Post for Josh and Kyle.
In the PDF, on pages 35-37 is where his feelings really come out. He wanted to retaliate against the natives who killed roughly 30 people. I would want to as well. Yet, after the fact, he realized what he had done. He feels regret, remorse, guilt, and hate towards himself. He feels he has betrayed God because he did not make correct and righteous decisions. There is always the part of war that is not trying to get even, but get ahead. He did so but at the level he did so was far greater than he intended. Before he did these things he was probably angry and determined. He did not realize what he was about to do. His actions led to his feelings. During his plan of attack, he did not ask God for counsel. He completely ignored God. Now, he wrote this passage because it is a way of expressing his emotions. It is like a modern day therapist. He wanted to clear his head and conscious.
Cameron Whetzler said
at 11:40 am on Sep 7, 2016
John Underhill in the beginning felt that they deserved to die and did not feel any remorse about it, but after they burned down the "fort" and heard everyone yelling and smelled the horrible smells he realized what he was doing and started to feel terrible about his actions.
BY:Cameron Whetzler
Anthony Tufaro
adleary@... said
at 11:40 am on Sep 7, 2016
Smiley, Aireon Leary
The emotions displayed were sad, mad and a lot of hate. a lot of respect and but mostly a closed mind about it. Its hard to forget about.
Alan Bowen said
at 11:40 am on Sep 7, 2016
Alan Bowen, Darius Flowers
When he is talking about the cry he is feeling the pain. When he says it took a half of an hour he felt the emotion of listening to people scream.
He is writing this to convince himself that what he did was righteous and from God.
Patrick Hutchinson said
at 11:41 am on Sep 7, 2016
In the beginning of the account, Underhill is justifying his cause by referring to the natives as evil beings (imps, devils, etc.) However, once he begins an account of the battle that takes place he begins to take the spotlight from his self and use the excuse almost of God did it rather than him. He displays with the change in terms from house to fort and devils to valiant and courageous men. By doing this he sheds light on his amount of guilt and sorrow for what he did, but by the end of the account he again justifies what he did by saying God had given them sufficient light for their proceedings. This gives an idea that Underwood wrote this to clear his conscious of the event. Patrick, Tony, Dylan.
Johnteasha said
at 11:45 am on Sep 7, 2016
Precious Haines, Yaira Mota
He is trying to shield himself from burning down the fort. He basically trying to clear his conscious. He feels his the pain by the way he is saying it. The tone of the text. The way you also know is that he took the time to write down his mercy. He "could have" (struggling with the regret) had the opportunity to change it. The fact that he went back and thought it through again makes him feel guilt.
Keion Robinson said
at 11:45 am on Sep 7, 2016
At the beginning of the text, Jacob Underhill feels and portrays through his dialogue hatred towards the situation and the Indians. However, towards the end it seems as if he is remorseful.
Keion. Dago, Glenn Scott
Keion Robinson said
at 11:20 am on Sep 9, 2016
Religion is the scapegoat in the situation of war for him. Religion gives him reason or excuse in why he did the things he did.
Cameron, Keion
Patrick Hutchinson said
at 11:20 am on Sep 9, 2016
Patrick Tony Jordan Dylan- He is using religion to give himself an excuse and a cover to take the light away from what he did as a human, by using God gave him reason to commit the acts that he and the soldiers committed.
Joshua Beckett said
at 11:21 am on Sep 9, 2016
Post for Josh and Kyle - Sept. 9
I view Underhill's religion as his guidelines of life. It is telling him how he should live his life. It gives him confidence that he has God on his side and a sense of righteousness. He believes he is doing what he is supposed to. He says he doesn't fear what men could do to him, for men can't do anything to him without God's protection. Basically, he is saying God will protect him for doing what he is supposed to do.
Jara Armstrong said
at 11:25 am on Sep 9, 2016
Jara and Adriana:
Underhill portrays God as honorable, appealing to authority. Religion is a source of authority for Underhill, because he treats God as a commander with high power.
Katelyn Dunford said
at 11:27 am on Sep 9, 2016
Katelyn Dunford and Carah Dalton
How do they use religion as a rhetorical device?
-In the Underhill Speech, he uses religion as a metaphor to make himself feel better about attacking the Indians, therefore relieving himself of the responsibility. He uses both logos and ethos. He uses ethos to appeal to ones values and authority by saying "he has God putting his fingerprint down on the Indian village." He also uses logos to rationalize the attack since God directed him to do it.
adleary@... said
at 11:35 am on Sep 9, 2016
Underhill statement is more of a life based off of god. With his decisions that he make and then adds god as if he was told to this by him.
You don't have permission to comment on this page.