Summary Of John Smith's Description Of Virginia
In “Description of Virginia,” John Smith describes the geography of Virginia and its native inhabitants. Smith begins by discussing the ideality of the climate and proximity to the Chesapeake Bay, saying “no place is more convenient for pleasure, profit, and man’s sustenance” (Smith). He immediately discerns the ways in which the rivers, harbors, and other geographical features could be used for military and commercial purposes. He even goes so far as to say that Virginia is as rich in natural resources as Moscow, Poland, Sweden, France, Spain, and Italy combined. He then begins to describe the Native Americans living in Virginia, including their appearance, ingenuity, material culture, and social structure. Smith’s description of the native
…show more content…
Smith does recognize Native Americans’ agility, endurance, and ingenuity. He also understands the difference between the roles of men and those of women: women focus more on agriculture, while men serve as hunters more often. His quantitative or tangible observations – those he could measure or see clearly and without inference – seem to be reliable. However, his observations on the Native Americans’ views as well as his own views reflect his biases. For example, Smith says “able men fit for their wars [are] scarce… men bestow their times in… wars, and such manlike exercises, scorning to be seen in any woman like exercise” (Smith). This observation from Smith’s account is unreliable, as Native North American women often participated in wars, and women were viewed more equally in Native North American societies than in European societies due to their pivotal role in the subsistence way of life. This inaccuracy most likely resulted from Smith’s own patriarchal views, not those of the Native Americans. Additionally, immediately after recognizing Native Americans’ ingenuity, Smith refers to the Native Americans as savage; despite their adaptation to their environment and their development, Smith’s direct observation of Native American civilization still warranted the common European view of Native
Smith does recognize Native Americans’ agility, endurance, and ingenuity. He also understands the difference between the roles of men and those of women: women focus more on agriculture, while men serve as hunters more often. His quantitative or tangible observations – those he could measure or see clearly and without inference – seem to be reliable. However, his observations on the Native Americans’ views as well as his own views reflect his biases. For example, Smith says “able men fit for their wars [are] scarce… men bestow their times in… wars, and such manlike exercises, scorning to be seen in any woman like exercise” (Smith). This observation from Smith’s account is unreliable, as Native North American women often participated in wars, and women were viewed more equally in Native North American societies than in European societies due to their pivotal role in the subsistence way of life. This inaccuracy most likely resulted from Smith’s own patriarchal views, not those of the Native Americans. Additionally, immediately after recognizing Native Americans’ ingenuity, Smith refers to the Native Americans as savage; despite their adaptation to their environment and their development, Smith’s direct observation of Native American civilization still warranted the common European view of Native