Consequences of War and Genocide

Mary Rowlandson’s narrative, in my opinion, in no way is justification for genocide or intolerance. I believe that the actions of the native americans can be seen as an act of war and defense and not as simply a malicious or savage-like situation. Mary Rowland and the people around and before her have started this trend of slurs, dehumanization, and genocide of native people wh0 had thrived long before the arrival of invasive people into their land. When colonizers arrived, they found that these native people were not living how English people knew how to live. Immediately the colonizers felt they needed to ‘teach’ and enlighten the natives and for some reason to do this they had to take their land. The front was weak and fake and the real reasons of exploiting land and resources were apparent to the natives as the invaders continually murdered them. Native Americans were not simply going to sit there and let their land, food and people taken from them, they fought back like anyone would in a war.

Throughout History situations like this have not been uncommon. We just discussed last week how central America was colonized and how the spaniards took advantage of the native people. The Aztec Empire had its resources stolenĀ and people killed. The Spanish claimed they were there for exploration and for the betterment of the ‘savages’ but they knew exactly why they were there. The spaniards came in and instigated a war with the natives just how english colonizers treated Native American’s. Both native people were attacked and misplaced by the colonizers.

Mary Rowlandson was a victim of the war going on around here and her views, opinions and ideas were also a victim of said war. Her beliefs and ideas towards the people should not diminish the acts done to her and her family but those acts should also not justify the acts of the colonizers before them.

-Noel Nevarez


2 thoughts on “Consequences of War and Genocide

  1. While I agree that this narrative is not an excuse for, “genocide or intolerance” I would suggest that it us an interesting interatation to imply that is the purpose of this narrative. The beginning of the narrative expresses a pretty heart wrenching scene when there is fire and death all around Mary. So my question is are you saying that she uses these emotions to imply that he Indians were completely in the wrong or could there be another purpose to her work? Very proactive post.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. You have pointed out that the Natives fought back like anyone would in war, but what do you make of Rowlandson being as submissive as she was when she was captured? Maybe gender played a role, but maybe also faith. A possibility for her actions is because she is against genocide and war as she did not fight back. Rowlandson witnessed her land, food, and people stripped from her and she did just sit there.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s