I have always been fascinated by Native American
captivity stories and Mary Rowlandson’s narrative did not disappoint. I found
it interesting, although not completely surprising, that Rowlandson does not
mention much of her settlement’s relationship with the Native Americans before
their attack on the town. The scene is described as if the attack came out of
nowhere, highly unlikely considering the English treatment of the Native
Americans in many situations. However, whether the attack was warranted or not,
Rowlandson’s grief at the onset of the attack and her initial captivity is
tangible in her prose as she witnesses the burning of her belongings and the
murders of her friends and loved ones. At times it seems she uses a third
person view in an attempt to offset how painful the memories are in her recollection.
Towards the end of her narrative, Rowlandson seems to
observe that the Native Americans were not entirely cold-hearted beings after
all. Although her story is one-sided at the beginning, the end seems to bring a
slight sense of understanding to her. She notes that the “Lord preserved them”
in their lives even when the English did their best to eliminate their sources
of food and shelter. She also admits that one “Indian” offered to help her run
away and take her home to her family. Even through her plight, it is
interesting to me that Rowlandson still makes a point to mention the Native
Americans in a way that does not entirely shed a negative light on them.
It is clear that
the Puritan idea of the “Doctrine of Affliction” influences Mary Rowlandson’s
mindset at her captivity and restoration to her family. Throughout her
struggles, she makes a point to note that it “pleased God” or that it was by “the
wonderful power of God” that she was afflicted with this captivity and brought
through it to make her stronger in her faith towards God. This idea is hard for
me to wrap my mind around as a modern day American. If I lost everything I
owned with little chance of replacing it, watched my friends and family die,
and was captured by the “heathens” who had committed the entire crime, I feel
as though my anger towards God would significantly outweigh my thankfulness for
the affliction that he had given me to strengthen my faith. Rowlandson makes a
point, albeit with some resentment, to thank God at every turn in her story.
I agree with you that Rowlandson was relying on blind faith to get her through the afflictions. In a way, it's hard to believe that she would be thankful for the afflictions of the Indians and the death of one of her children. I understand Puritans "have" to think this way, but it's not a very human response in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteHi Tia, Thanks for the great post on Rowlandson. The text fully dramatizes the Puritan doctrine of affliction. Rowlandson even admits in the end she wanted to be afflicted. Strange notion. dw
ReplyDelete