I believe that history is a unique experience for each and every student. The instructor can only teach students so many facts, while they usually leave it up to the student to interpret history as they see it. I view history as a type of art in the way that it is open to interpretation, and students are encouraged to create their own views on past events. Throughout history, there are many important and influential events that may be interpreted in different ways. Take Bacon’s Rebellion of 1676 for example; there has been a lot of controversy over whether or not the Indians were the victims. While teaching this event in American history, the instructors teach the facts about who attacked who and when, but they do not directly tell the students who the heroes and the victims were. They leave that open to interpretation, which I see as a form of art. I believe there is no one ‘right’ interpretation to a historical event, just as there is no one ‘right’ way to paint a painting. One of the many factors that are involved in this idea of mine is the time era in which the event took place. This is because something viewed as morally wrong in the 1950’s may be viewed as socially acceptable in 2050. Interpretations change based upon time era and the views in the society during that time era. That is one reason why I had a very difficult time in deciding if the Indians were truly the victims. What I tried to do was to chose a side that was right in my eyes, which my first instinct was that the Indians were one hundred percent the true victims of Bacon’s Rebellion with no doubt about it. After much thought and conversation with peers, I realized that my view must be biased because of the time era that I was raised and now live in. If I were to have been born and raised in the 1600’s or even 1700’s, I may have strongly believed that Nathaniel Bacon Jr. was nothing but a hero, and that his actions were completely justifiable. Since the 17th and 18th centuries had very different views on subjects such as Indians and land than we do today, it would not be fair for me to judge Bacon and his actions in the 17th century. Today’s teachings and social views have definitely changed since the 1600’s. So who is to say that if I were in Bacon’s shoes in the 1670’s, that I would have not taken the same exaction action as he did? There is no true way to tell. In order to correctly make interpretations about Bacon’s Rebellion, an overview of the facts is needed.
Nathaniel Bacon Jr. rebelled against the government of
When it comes to the topic of Bacon’s Rebellion, there are many different views about who the victims and heroes were. It is often claimed that the Indians were the true victims, while it is just as often claimed that English settlers were the true victims. There are many documents saying that the Indians are not the victims and that they deserved what they received, but remember that those documents were also written hundreds of years ago. Most perspectives have changed dramatically since those hundreds of years have passed. As time has gone on, people have begun to understand that everyone is equal and should be treated as such. This was the not case in the 1600’s. More people today understand that the way Englishmen treated Indians is controversial, yet back in the 1600’s the Englishmen thought nothing of it. Opinions have been biased based upon what time era they were raised in and what beliefs were practiced at that time. Although Bacon may have been seen as a hero in his time, it is clear to me that in my time, I see that Bacon was wrong in his actions and the Indians were the true victims. There are many other people who agree with me.
One interpretation of Bacon’s Rebellion is that the Indians were the victims, primarily because the colonists were the instigators of the Rebellion. In this case, it would only make sense that the English cannot rightfully blame the Indians for retaliating. This idea is supported with history because it was the English settlers that broke the treaty that had concluded the Indian surprise attacks in 1644, not the Indians. What this treaty contracted was that, “The Indians relinquished all claims to land already settled by the English. Wilderness land beyond the fringe of English settlement was supposed to be reserved exclusively for Indian use.” (The American Promise, page 91) This treaty might have worked if the population had not have grown. The majority of the new growth was due to the recently freed indentured servants who wanted to own land. There were many land-hungry Englishmen of all classes at that time in search for land. According to the quote about the treaty, one major conflict was that because there were many people searching for land, the English were forced to expand their search for land outside of the treaty limits. There was much more available Indian land than there was set aside for the English. It is important to remember that the English did not believe that the Indians were the same as the Indians. The English believed that they were superior to the Indians, so it did not matter to them that they were not following a document that protected the land of their inferiors. Land was at the top of the priority list for the English colonists.
Englishmen who were in search for land began to search outside of their allotted land. Eventually they ran into Indian settlements, which caused the Indians to begin fighting with the English in order to protect their land. This is completely understandable from the Indian side because history may imply that since the English broke the treaty, which the Indians had followed, that the Indians had a right to protect their land. One fact that might make these actions understandable was that most of "The servants who joined Bacon's Rebellion were part of a large underclass of miserably poor whites." (A Young People's History of the
One other main reason that the Indians were seen as the victims was because not all the Indians killed were the 'guilty' Indians who had actually killed Englishmen. Nathaniel Bacon and his followers broke the peace that was established with some tribes by killing innocent Indians, and not taking the time to make sure he only killed the Indians of enemy tribes. According to the Royal Commissioners,” Bacon had got over the [James] River with his forces and hastening away into the woods, went directly and fell upon the Indians and killed some of them [which] were some of our best Friends….the people [would not] understand any distinction of Friendly Indians and Indian Enemies.” (A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in
The other common view to Bacon’s Rebellion was that the Indians were not the victims, and Nathaniel Bacon was rightfully named a hero. In this interpretation, the colonists were the victims because the Indians were barbarous and murdered many English. One piece of evidence that supports that statement is that the poor people had no representation in the House of Burgesses. This was because of a law passed in 1670 that “outlawed voting by poor men, permitting only men who headed a household and were landowners to vote.” (The American promise, page 90). As it was made known earlier, most of Bacon's supporters were the recently freed servants, who wanted more land. The lower class was the most heavily taxed of all the classes, but
Many settlers thought that the Indians should not have expected for the English to let them get away with all these murders, even though in my eyes they were more justified that Bacon’s murders. In the Royal Commissioners Narrative: Testimony given by Mrs. William Bird, Mrs. Bird states,”That before ever Mr. Bacon went out against the Indians, there were said to be above two hundred of the English murdered by the barbarous Indians, and posts [messages] came in daily to the governor, giving notice of it, and yet no course was taken to secure them.” In making this comment Mrs. Bird argues that Bacon and his followers were right in killing Indians because Governor Berkeley was not taking any action to stop them from killing innocent Englishmen. Bacon believed that
In the 1600’s, going against the Indians may have seemed to be the right move. In the 21st century, it seems like what Bacon did was wrong and he was truly unjustified in killing the Indians. There are no set in stone victims or heroes in this rebellion, it is all left up to personal speculation and opinion. My view on Bacon’s Rebellion is that if I were looking at this event from the 1600’s, I would have said that Bacon was justified in his actions. In contrast, when I look at this event from the 2000’s, I firmly believe that Bacon was not justified in his actions and he killed the Indians without any real reasons. Yet, I believe that Bacon was not an evil or horrible man, but his choices were different from what our choices would be today. One common idea in his time era was “might makes right.” That idea did not really have a name yet, but it was still an ideal in the early colonies. In this situation, Bacon had the might over the government and the Indians, which may have been seen as a justification of his rebellion in the 17th century. Since it is now the 21st century, the majority of people have been taught that “might does not make right”, or a similar idea. This causes many people may argue that his rebellion was not justified or right, but the people that are arguing that are people from the 21st century, not those from the 17th century. I strongly believe that each person’s opinion will be different from others’ because people interpret things differently which greatly depends on what era they were raised in. “Might makes right” was one of the ideals that had changed over time because of the growth in education people rose as time went on. History is art, first you learn the facts, and then you create your own views based upon those facts. There is no wrong answer.
- “The American Promise” by James L. Roark and others.
- "A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in
- "A Young People's History of the
- "Royal Commissioners Narrative" Testimony given by Mrs. William Bird.
- "American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass." The American Journal of Sociology, vol. 96, NO. 2
By Douglass S. Massey.
URL: http://www.jstor.org/pss/2781105 - "The Journal of Southern History"
URL:http://www.jstor.org/pss/2954992
No comments:
Post a Comment