William Apess’ text, King Philip as pronounced at the Odeon, wasn’t really a eulogy. It did, near the end, declared King Philip to be, “the greatest man that was ever in America” (56), however the vast majority discussed the brutality of whites at the time. Though the title suggests that it will praise King Philip, he is not even mentioned until about 15 pages into the text. I don’t see it as a eulogy for King Philip, but rather a documentation of the suffering of Indians under the control of white America. In all of the situations mentioned Indians reached out a helping hand continually, while white Christian, following what they believed to be God’s orders, chopped them off.
I thought that Apess’ use of religion to turn the tables of what most whites at the time believed to be good and evil was smart. He argues that Christianity tells you to respect one another and that if God thought that Indian tribes needed to be rid of, then white did not and should not be killing Indian tribesmen. The tribes that were most brutally slaughtered were those that were trying desperately to assimilate. Many mentioned in the story had converted to Christianity, but were killed by fellow Christians. Apess’ text is interesting, in that rather than a eulogy of a single man, it seems to be a eulogy of a culture, wholehearted and welcoming, that was slaughtered. He reminds people of what our ancestors have done, but states that no one should be held accountable for the actions of those that came before. We are told to remember what has happened, but to forgive those around us and move on.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that it was a good idea for Apess to use Christianity to sway the white people's opinion and treatment of the Native Americans. He argues that Christianity says to treat and respect all people, but here in lies the problem. I don't think the white people thought of the Indians and people, but rather as savages as they were so commonly referred to. They probably justified their treatment of the Native Americans by arguing that they werent on the same level or class and so they should not be treated the same.
ReplyDeleteI like how you wrote about how Apess used religion to turn the tables. I liked how Apess talked about how christianity is suppose to act and how the white Christians are actually behaving. It makes readers reevaluate, who are the the Christians?
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to consider why, as you said, "the tribes that were most brutally slaughtered were those that were trying desperately to assimilate." These clearly were not acts of defense at all but acts of hatred. What put Europeans in the position to misunderstand or defy there own religion to such a degree?
ReplyDeleteI think Hardeep brings in a good point. To many people at the time, they perhaps didn't even see Native people as humans who could be true Christians, thus rendering their religions convictions moot. Does Apess humanize himself for his audience?
ReplyDelete