John Smith Truth
“The Truth of John Smith”
The text I have chosen to write this essay about is an account by John Smith about his experiences in the New World and his first encounter with Native American people. The text I’m using is from the coursepack page 105 to page 107, General History of Virginia, New England and the Summer Isles, from the second chapter in book three. Although this text holds many interesting aspects, I have chosen the one aspect that interested me the most, namely, in which way the truth is represented in this particular text by John Smith. To work with this concept I have adopted two additional premises that I will elaborate further on in the rest of this essay. These premises are: What can be accounted for is true and: A text …show more content…
written from a certain horizon is never objective. With the help of these two premises, I will try to prove my interpretive thesis, which is that John Smith’s text is not objective and can therefore not be accepted as true, as such. To start I would like to give attention to the figure of John Smith, who wrote this account of his travels at the beginning of the 17th century. To me it seems like he felt that he had a lot to prove, perhaps because he was one of the first to undertake such an expedition, and no one had ever experienced what he experienced with the natives. For some reason, Smith really tries to make the reader believe in his words. There are certain aspects in the text which indicate that Smith tries to make his text as believable as possible; he makes his text look truthful. This starts already with the title of his text: History of Virginia, New England and the Summer Isles. That he calls his account a history is noteworthy because history is a word that indicates truth. Everything that is history and is written in history books is usually believed to be true. It is a common understanding which we have in our society; something is only called history if the event is proved and if everyone comes to the understanding to believe the same thing has happened. That Smith calls his own story history is therefore an indication that he wants his account to be regarded as true, as something everyone believes. Another indication that Smith wants to make his text believable is visible in a pattern that I thought was quite remarkable in the text. It is a pattern of the recurrence of numbers and time indications. In telling his story Smith repeatedly uses the exact numbers of people that were present or the exact amount of time an event lasted. To show this I have a few examples selected from the text. First of all: “Being thus left to our fortunes, it fortuned that within ten days…” (105). Another example could be: “.. having fried some twenty-six weeks in the ship’s hold…” (106). Or another example: “Being but six or seven in company he went down the river to Kecoughtan….” (107). And in this matter a lot of similar examples can be found in the text. I wondered, while reading this text, why Smith found it necessary to point out all these exact numbers every time. Every time he uses numbers in the examples I have given, the message could have easily been conveyed by shorter expressions. Just by saying within some days or with a company of people, Smith would have said the same in a more easy way. But I think that Smith, by stating all these numbers and facts, tried to give some scientific significance to his words, a quality assurance that a truth has been reached in an understandable and verifiable way. By telling all the facts and stating exactly how things were, he makes the reader feel as if they themselves were present. Moreover, Smith implies with this quantification that in no possible way could he be lying because he knows all these little details. This is also the reason why I have adopted my first additional premise; what can be accounted for is true. This is clearly what John Smith wants us to think, and therefore he constructed his text in such a way that we, from this point of view, almost have to believe in his words. Secondly, I would like to focus on the fact that John Smith had an encounter with the Native American people in the time he writes about in the text.
This means an encounter of two social-cultural matrixes of two different kinds of people with different beliefs and viewpoints. Smith writes from his own very clear viewpoint and imposes this viewpoint on the reader. The viewpoint of the natives is ignored in his text. Smith tries to convey the idea of superiority, both of himself and of his men, in relation to the natives. This becomes obvious in two different patterns. First of all, there is a pattern wherein Smith gives a negative depiction of the natives. I have selected a few examples from the text to show this. For example: “…each hour expecting the fury of the savages…” (106). Another example could be: “This done, seeing the savage’s superfluity begin to decrease…” (107). And as a final example: “… expecting as it happened that the savages would assault them, as not long after they did with a most hideous noise.” (107). The word savage, which Smith repeats time after time, insistently gives the idea that the natives in Smith’s eyes were less worthy. The second pattern which supports the idea of European superiority is the constant glorification of Smith and his men. Also for this pattern I have selected three examples from the text. First of all: “… we might have been canonized for saints…” (105). Secondly, the quote wherein Smith is especially glorifying himself: “Captain Smith, who, by his own example, good words, and fair promises, set some to mow, others to bind thatch, some to build houses, others to thatch them, himself always bearing the greatest task for his own share…”(106). And finally: “… he would not only be their friend…” (107). This last quote indicates that Smith had nothing but good intentions with the natives, but that the natives were unwilling to accept them. What bothers me is that Smith, in such a way, imposes this idea on the reader of
the goodness of him and his men and the badness of the natives. But nowhere in the story is the voice of the natives heard. We never get to know if Smith tells us the truth because a big part of the story is just ignored. This is what led me to my second additional premise, a text written from a certain horizon is never objective. Only if Smith had adopted the native’s voices in the text and the natives had affirmed his story, then we could believe what he is trying to convey. All in all, I have looked above at different patterns that I found interesting in this text by John Smith. The way Smith is dealing with the concept of truth is at the very least doubtful. The pattern of numbers and accuracy and the genre of the text lead to an acceptance of the truthfulness of the text. On the other hand, the fact that the text entails an encounter between two different social-cultural matrixes makes us doubt this truthfulness. This makes us see that John Smith’s text is not objective and can therefore not be accepted as true. But then again, isn’t this true about all the texts that are written by just one single author? I think, while reading a text, one always has to keep in mind the author and the background from which the text is written.
Work Cited
- Smith, John. “General History of Virginia, New England and the Summer Isles.” The Norton Anthology of American Literature. 6th ed. Ed. Nina Baym et al. New York: Norton, 2003. 253-59.
The text I have chosen to write this essay about is an account by John Smith about his experiences in the New World and his first encounter with Native American people. The text I’m using is from the coursepack page 105 to page 107, General History of Virginia, New England and the Summer Isles, from the second chapter in book three. Although this text holds many interesting aspects, I have chosen the one aspect that interested me the most, namely, in which way the truth is represented in this particular text by John Smith. To work with this concept I have adopted two additional premises that I will elaborate further on in the rest of this essay. These premises are: What can be accounted for is true and: A text …show more content…
written from a certain horizon is never objective. With the help of these two premises, I will try to prove my interpretive thesis, which is that John Smith’s text is not objective and can therefore not be accepted as true, as such. To start I would like to give attention to the figure of John Smith, who wrote this account of his travels at the beginning of the 17th century. To me it seems like he felt that he had a lot to prove, perhaps because he was one of the first to undertake such an expedition, and no one had ever experienced what he experienced with the natives. For some reason, Smith really tries to make the reader believe in his words. There are certain aspects in the text which indicate that Smith tries to make his text as believable as possible; he makes his text look truthful. This starts already with the title of his text: History of Virginia, New England and the Summer Isles. That he calls his account a history is noteworthy because history is a word that indicates truth. Everything that is history and is written in history books is usually believed to be true. It is a common understanding which we have in our society; something is only called history if the event is proved and if everyone comes to the understanding to believe the same thing has happened. That Smith calls his own story history is therefore an indication that he wants his account to be regarded as true, as something everyone believes. Another indication that Smith wants to make his text believable is visible in a pattern that I thought was quite remarkable in the text. It is a pattern of the recurrence of numbers and time indications. In telling his story Smith repeatedly uses the exact numbers of people that were present or the exact amount of time an event lasted. To show this I have a few examples selected from the text. First of all: “Being thus left to our fortunes, it fortuned that within ten days…” (105). Another example could be: “.. having fried some twenty-six weeks in the ship’s hold…” (106). Or another example: “Being but six or seven in company he went down the river to Kecoughtan….” (107). And in this matter a lot of similar examples can be found in the text. I wondered, while reading this text, why Smith found it necessary to point out all these exact numbers every time. Every time he uses numbers in the examples I have given, the message could have easily been conveyed by shorter expressions. Just by saying within some days or with a company of people, Smith would have said the same in a more easy way. But I think that Smith, by stating all these numbers and facts, tried to give some scientific significance to his words, a quality assurance that a truth has been reached in an understandable and verifiable way. By telling all the facts and stating exactly how things were, he makes the reader feel as if they themselves were present. Moreover, Smith implies with this quantification that in no possible way could he be lying because he knows all these little details. This is also the reason why I have adopted my first additional premise; what can be accounted for is true. This is clearly what John Smith wants us to think, and therefore he constructed his text in such a way that we, from this point of view, almost have to believe in his words. Secondly, I would like to focus on the fact that John Smith had an encounter with the Native American people in the time he writes about in the text.
This means an encounter of two social-cultural matrixes of two different kinds of people with different beliefs and viewpoints. Smith writes from his own very clear viewpoint and imposes this viewpoint on the reader. The viewpoint of the natives is ignored in his text. Smith tries to convey the idea of superiority, both of himself and of his men, in relation to the natives. This becomes obvious in two different patterns. First of all, there is a pattern wherein Smith gives a negative depiction of the natives. I have selected a few examples from the text to show this. For example: “…each hour expecting the fury of the savages…” (106). Another example could be: “This done, seeing the savage’s superfluity begin to decrease…” (107). And as a final example: “… expecting as it happened that the savages would assault them, as not long after they did with a most hideous noise.” (107). The word savage, which Smith repeats time after time, insistently gives the idea that the natives in Smith’s eyes were less worthy. The second pattern which supports the idea of European superiority is the constant glorification of Smith and his men. Also for this pattern I have selected three examples from the text. First of all: “… we might have been canonized for saints…” (105). Secondly, the quote wherein Smith is especially glorifying himself: “Captain Smith, who, by his own example, good words, and fair promises, set some to mow, others to bind thatch, some to build houses, others to thatch them, himself always bearing the greatest task for his own share…”(106). And finally: “… he would not only be their friend…” (107). This last quote indicates that Smith had nothing but good intentions with the natives, but that the natives were unwilling to accept them. What bothers me is that Smith, in such a way, imposes this idea on the reader of
the goodness of him and his men and the badness of the natives. But nowhere in the story is the voice of the natives heard. We never get to know if Smith tells us the truth because a big part of the story is just ignored. This is what led me to my second additional premise, a text written from a certain horizon is never objective. Only if Smith had adopted the native’s voices in the text and the natives had affirmed his story, then we could believe what he is trying to convey. All in all, I have looked above at different patterns that I found interesting in this text by John Smith. The way Smith is dealing with the concept of truth is at the very least doubtful. The pattern of numbers and accuracy and the genre of the text lead to an acceptance of the truthfulness of the text. On the other hand, the fact that the text entails an encounter between two different social-cultural matrixes makes us doubt this truthfulness. This makes us see that John Smith’s text is not objective and can therefore not be accepted as true. But then again, isn’t this true about all the texts that are written by just one single author? I think, while reading a text, one always has to keep in mind the author and the background from which the text is written.
Work Cited
- Smith, John. “General History of Virginia, New England and the Summer Isles.” The Norton Anthology of American Literature. 6th ed. Ed. Nina Baym et al. New York: Norton, 2003. 253-59.