Puritan Ideals In John Winthrop's Settlers
Even those who are only passingly familiar with the horrific events that occurred during the colonization of the Americas know that the perpetrators betrayed the basic sense of compassion inherent in Christianity. However, many settlers claimed the “new” land in the name of God and asserted that they acted in perfect harmony with biblical ideals. With similar intentions, John Winthrop and his fellow settlers travelled to Massachusetts Bay to establish a colony based on Puritan ideals. While on the way to the new colony, Winthrop delivers a sermon entitled "A Model of Christian Charity" to dictate the ideals his Puritan colony would have to follow to please God. Indeed, Winthrop’s sermon suggests that his guidelines should be considered appropriate
…show more content…
for all Christian settlements. Unfortunately, there is ample evidence to suggest that European settlers rushed to create the divide that Winthrop spoke of when he said, “as in all times some must be rich, some poor, some high and eminent in power and dignity; others mean and in subjection,” but did not seek the “bonds of brotherly affection” that this divide supposedly created (166-7). The only exception to this is when European settlers availed themselves of the Native Americans’ hospitality and “brotherly affection” (Winthrop 167). The works of Heckewelder and De Las Casas provide accounts of the settlers’ horrific behaviors which are quite contrary to the guidelines laid out in Winthrop’s "A Model of Christian Charity".
In Europe, a few people were wealthy beyond reason while most were poor without hope of respite.
Naturally, once these people came into a new a land they sought to create a similar societal structure and place themselves at the top. Heckewelder's account of the first encounter between the Lenni Lenape clan and the Dutch shows that the Dutch's sinister motive is evident from the start. After introducing alcohol to the clan (whether with the intent to be courteous or to get them drunk), the Dutch worm their way into the grace of the clan with gifts (Heckewelder 70). Next, the Dutch return after some time and ask for as much land as they could cover with the hide of a bullock so that they can sustain themselves (Heckewelder 70). The clan agrees to this modest request and the Dutch return the favor with a trick by cutting the hide "up to a long rope... so that by the time the whole was cut up, it made a great heap... It was drawn out into circular form, and being closed at its ends, encompassed a large piece of ground," (Heckewelder 71). The Dutch evidently believe that if they did not trick the Native Americans out of their land then the Dutch would lose their opportunity to be "high and eminent in power," and so confirm their status over the Native Americans (Winthrop 166). Sadly, De Las Casas provides a more chilling account of the Europeans' creation of a societal divide between the Native Americans and themselves. Similarly to the Dutch in Heckewelder's piece, "the Spaniards did not content themselves with what the Indians gave them of their own free will" (De Las Casas 39). Instead, the Spanish "attacked the towns and spared neither the children nor the aged, nor pregnant women nor women in childbed" (De Las Casas 40). Not satisfied with the order of things, the Spanish continue and "took infants from their mothers' breasts, snatching them by the legs and pitching them headfirst against the crags or snatched them by the arms and threw them into the rivers,
roaring with laughter" (De Las Casas 40). To be completely satisfied that the Spanish's terror affected all Native Americans, they "with still others, all those they wanted to capture alive, they cut off their hands and hung them around the victim's neck, saying 'Go now, carry the message,' meaning, take the news to the Indians who have fled to the mountains" (De Las Casas 40). The cruelty of the Spanish does not stop with the brutal murder of Native Americans, but extends into slavery where the Native Americans are sent "to do hard labor in the mines, labors that caused many of them to die" (De Las Casas 41). In this way, the Spanish exploits the Native Americans to make themselves quite rich and "eminent... in power" while harshly oppressing the Native Americans(Winthrop 166). By killing, enslaving, and tricking the Native Americans out of their homeland, the Europeans made certain that the Native Americans were "mean and in subjection," thus cementing the divide put forth by Winthrop (166). As history tells us, the suffering of the Native Americans did not end once the European settlers claimed the land and resources of the Americas. Unfortunately, the European settlers were not "knit more nearly together in the bonds of brotherly affection" with the Native Americans because of the harsh divisions between these two peoples, as Winthrop suggested (167). According to Heckewelder, the Dutch did not satisfy themselves with tricking the Native Americans out of only part of their land, but continued to acquire more land "until the Indians began to believe that they would soon want all of their country, which in the end proved true" (71). So instead, the Dutch merely tried even harder to undermine and oppress the Native Americans once the Dutch had already forced them to be "mean and in subjection" (Winthrop 166). Removing a people from their homeland is not indicative of a divine love inspired by poverty, to say the least. Naturally, the Spanish also were not inclined to halt their systemic destruction of the Native Americans, despite De Las Casas' complaints. After some time of genocide and mass enslavement, "some Indians... fled to the mountains to avoid the terrible transactions of the Christians" (De Las Casas 40). Not to be outdone, "the Spanish captains, enemies of the human race, pursued them with the fierce dogs they kept which attacked the Indians, tearing them to pieces and devouring them" (De Las Casas 40). Traditionally, brothers do not set fierce dogs upon their siblings, especially out of love. Once more, Winthrop's "bonds of brotherly affection" fail to appear (167). Another poignant example of the disregard for the downtrodden Native Americans appears when De Las Casas relates this exchange between a slave owner and a buyer when the Native American is old or sick: "'Why do you give me this one? To bury him? And this sick one, do you give him to me to make him well?'" (41). De Las Casas continues, "See by such remarks in what esteem the Spaniards hold the Indians and judge if they are accomplishing the divine concepts of love for our fellow man," (41-2). Even De Las Casas, a Spaniard himself, knows that the Spanish do not treat the Native Americans with respect, much less "brotherly affection" (Winthrop 167). Repeatedly, Europeans fail to show even the most basic decency while dealing with Native Americans. In reality, the harsh division instituted between Native Americans and Europeans pushed them away from each other rather than knitting them "more nearly together in the bonds of brotherly affection" (Winthrop 167).
In the words of Winthrop, "God Almighty in His most holy and wise providence, hath so disposed of the condition of mankind, as in all times some must be rich, some poor, some high and eminent in power and dignity; others mean and in subjection," (166). As previously evidenced by the accounts of Heckewelder and De Las Casas, European settlers latched onto this idea. In accordance with this belief, European settlers harshly oppressed Native Americans so that they were "mean and in subjection" while the European settlers were "high and eminent in power and dignity" (Winthrop 167). However, European settlers ignored one of the chief reasons why such a divide is considered natural. According to Winthrop, this divide exists so "that every man might have need of other, and from hence they might be all knit more nearly together in the bonds of brotherly affection" (167). While the European settlers may have needed the Native Americans for their forced, free labor, the Native Americans had no need for the European's brutal oppression. No "bonds of brotherly affection" arose from genocide and mass enslavement.
for all Christian settlements. Unfortunately, there is ample evidence to suggest that European settlers rushed to create the divide that Winthrop spoke of when he said, “as in all times some must be rich, some poor, some high and eminent in power and dignity; others mean and in subjection,” but did not seek the “bonds of brotherly affection” that this divide supposedly created (166-7). The only exception to this is when European settlers availed themselves of the Native Americans’ hospitality and “brotherly affection” (Winthrop 167). The works of Heckewelder and De Las Casas provide accounts of the settlers’ horrific behaviors which are quite contrary to the guidelines laid out in Winthrop’s "A Model of Christian Charity".
In Europe, a few people were wealthy beyond reason while most were poor without hope of respite.
Naturally, once these people came into a new a land they sought to create a similar societal structure and place themselves at the top. Heckewelder's account of the first encounter between the Lenni Lenape clan and the Dutch shows that the Dutch's sinister motive is evident from the start. After introducing alcohol to the clan (whether with the intent to be courteous or to get them drunk), the Dutch worm their way into the grace of the clan with gifts (Heckewelder 70). Next, the Dutch return after some time and ask for as much land as they could cover with the hide of a bullock so that they can sustain themselves (Heckewelder 70). The clan agrees to this modest request and the Dutch return the favor with a trick by cutting the hide "up to a long rope... so that by the time the whole was cut up, it made a great heap... It was drawn out into circular form, and being closed at its ends, encompassed a large piece of ground," (Heckewelder 71). The Dutch evidently believe that if they did not trick the Native Americans out of their land then the Dutch would lose their opportunity to be "high and eminent in power," and so confirm their status over the Native Americans (Winthrop 166). Sadly, De Las Casas provides a more chilling account of the Europeans' creation of a societal divide between the Native Americans and themselves. Similarly to the Dutch in Heckewelder's piece, "the Spaniards did not content themselves with what the Indians gave them of their own free will" (De Las Casas 39). Instead, the Spanish "attacked the towns and spared neither the children nor the aged, nor pregnant women nor women in childbed" (De Las Casas 40). Not satisfied with the order of things, the Spanish continue and "took infants from their mothers' breasts, snatching them by the legs and pitching them headfirst against the crags or snatched them by the arms and threw them into the rivers,
roaring with laughter" (De Las Casas 40). To be completely satisfied that the Spanish's terror affected all Native Americans, they "with still others, all those they wanted to capture alive, they cut off their hands and hung them around the victim's neck, saying 'Go now, carry the message,' meaning, take the news to the Indians who have fled to the mountains" (De Las Casas 40). The cruelty of the Spanish does not stop with the brutal murder of Native Americans, but extends into slavery where the Native Americans are sent "to do hard labor in the mines, labors that caused many of them to die" (De Las Casas 41). In this way, the Spanish exploits the Native Americans to make themselves quite rich and "eminent... in power" while harshly oppressing the Native Americans(Winthrop 166). By killing, enslaving, and tricking the Native Americans out of their homeland, the Europeans made certain that the Native Americans were "mean and in subjection," thus cementing the divide put forth by Winthrop (166). As history tells us, the suffering of the Native Americans did not end once the European settlers claimed the land and resources of the Americas. Unfortunately, the European settlers were not "knit more nearly together in the bonds of brotherly affection" with the Native Americans because of the harsh divisions between these two peoples, as Winthrop suggested (167). According to Heckewelder, the Dutch did not satisfy themselves with tricking the Native Americans out of only part of their land, but continued to acquire more land "until the Indians began to believe that they would soon want all of their country, which in the end proved true" (71). So instead, the Dutch merely tried even harder to undermine and oppress the Native Americans once the Dutch had already forced them to be "mean and in subjection" (Winthrop 166). Removing a people from their homeland is not indicative of a divine love inspired by poverty, to say the least. Naturally, the Spanish also were not inclined to halt their systemic destruction of the Native Americans, despite De Las Casas' complaints. After some time of genocide and mass enslavement, "some Indians... fled to the mountains to avoid the terrible transactions of the Christians" (De Las Casas 40). Not to be outdone, "the Spanish captains, enemies of the human race, pursued them with the fierce dogs they kept which attacked the Indians, tearing them to pieces and devouring them" (De Las Casas 40). Traditionally, brothers do not set fierce dogs upon their siblings, especially out of love. Once more, Winthrop's "bonds of brotherly affection" fail to appear (167). Another poignant example of the disregard for the downtrodden Native Americans appears when De Las Casas relates this exchange between a slave owner and a buyer when the Native American is old or sick: "'Why do you give me this one? To bury him? And this sick one, do you give him to me to make him well?'" (41). De Las Casas continues, "See by such remarks in what esteem the Spaniards hold the Indians and judge if they are accomplishing the divine concepts of love for our fellow man," (41-2). Even De Las Casas, a Spaniard himself, knows that the Spanish do not treat the Native Americans with respect, much less "brotherly affection" (Winthrop 167). Repeatedly, Europeans fail to show even the most basic decency while dealing with Native Americans. In reality, the harsh division instituted between Native Americans and Europeans pushed them away from each other rather than knitting them "more nearly together in the bonds of brotherly affection" (Winthrop 167).
In the words of Winthrop, "God Almighty in His most holy and wise providence, hath so disposed of the condition of mankind, as in all times some must be rich, some poor, some high and eminent in power and dignity; others mean and in subjection," (166). As previously evidenced by the accounts of Heckewelder and De Las Casas, European settlers latched onto this idea. In accordance with this belief, European settlers harshly oppressed Native Americans so that they were "mean and in subjection" while the European settlers were "high and eminent in power and dignity" (Winthrop 167). However, European settlers ignored one of the chief reasons why such a divide is considered natural. According to Winthrop, this divide exists so "that every man might have need of other, and from hence they might be all knit more nearly together in the bonds of brotherly affection" (167). While the European settlers may have needed the Native Americans for their forced, free labor, the Native Americans had no need for the European's brutal oppression. No "bonds of brotherly affection" arose from genocide and mass enslavement.