Fact and Fiction (Essay Sample)

Student’s Name Instructor’s Name Course Date Fact and Fiction- the Difficulty of Telling the Truth in Early Personal Narratives There exist many discrepancies in the two readings, A General History of America by John Smith and A “Notable Exploit” by Cotton Mather. The narrations, all of which focus on the interactions of colonialists with the Native Indians, have intentional discrepancies. Intentionally since the colonialists wanted to justify their misdeeds and paint themselves blameless as they persecuted Native Indians, all the while painting the actions of those same Indians as the vilest and most atrocious. These fabricated or slightly skewed accounts of events raise lots of questions as to what took place and what did not. It is indisputable, however, that the discrepancies contained in the narratives have an emotive function; Justify the actions of colonialists against the Native Indian tribes. The extensive use of derogatory terms at the slightest opportunity about Native Indians points to a biased narrative drawing from the struggle between good and evil. John Smith's account of his encounters with the Indians is filled with degrading terminology. American Indians are referred to as savages, whereas, in jest, the colonialists refer to themselves as 'saints .'This self-righteous attitude is evident throughout the account, particularly in describing the rituals, artifacts, and their (Indians’) general ways of life. The choice of words, as can be noticed, paints the Indians as evil, their practices demonic and frightening. As is expected of what is evil, it is shunned, frowned upon, and, in the most extreme of cases, punished. Similarly, this reference is present in the "Notable Exploit ."Indians are wantonly labeled as "savages," "Idolaters," "persecutors," and "squaw". Such words serve a purpose; to justify the actions taken against Indians within the narrative. The consistent comparison of Indians with the devil and evil deeds is indicative of knowledge of the effects of such correlation. John Smith vindicates his attitude toward the Indians by constantly comparing the Indians with evil and their good deeds to his god. The Indians are presented as lacking empathy or the ability to do anything good without it being attributed to his god. In contrast, the accounts of Hannah Dustan justify her murder of ten Indians. Therefore all of them (Indians) are left to be seen as evil and demonic and deserving of all ill that befalls them. Inconsistencies in reporting and variations within accounts justify the Killing of Indians. For Instance, John smith is helped by Indians to feed his colleagues who are malnourished and are about to die. The Indians provide John Smith and his men with food. However, once the food started to diminish, John smith took men with him armed with rifles to go to the Indians to get more food since they feared their numbers. John and his men fire at the Indians, killing some of them after their chief supposedly mocks his skinny body. Surprisingly after a short fight, the two sides agree to be friends. The inconsistency in the reporting is the logic of their (John Smith and his men) actions. The Indians had helped them out before with food, and as is expected, they would have helped them again. However, the carrying of rifles at the start before being mocked is indicative of a hidden agenda. John Smith and his men's greed and feelings of entitlement had grown so much that they decided to take grains from the Indians forcefully. The simple insertion of the mocking event before the shooting of Indians without provocation is to provide justifications for their shooting and killing of the Indians. On the other hand, the variations within Hannah Dustan’s accounts vindicate her actions of killing the Indians. For Instance, in her (Hannah Dustan) narrative, her husband took all the children she had with her and left one behind, a newborn killed by its head being bashed against a tree. However, what is surprising is that all the individuals who had been with her had been killed in the same manner, but she, even after giving birth, had the strength to walk all those miles alongside her nurse, who by some chance had not had her head bashed in too. The chances of her doing so against other healthy individuals are slim, which points to the justification of her encounters with Indians who were found dead. Furthermore, the reduction in the number of Indians from a possible twenty to ten does not make any sense. The first reported number of 20 is to make her capture and those of other individuals believable, whereas their reduction in number and nature from savages to a family explains how she was able to murder the ten Indians. The story and its variations are meant to paint the Indians in a bad light to make her actions justifiable. Numerous factors point to the conclusion that her story is a fabricated account. The first is that the father of the children could have taken all the children with him, and the newborn's existence cannot be validated since it was killed while they were on their road to an Indian town. In this respect, her account does not carry any weight at all, and it is a justification for her murder together with her two accomplices, a family of Indians. Damsel in distress, the formula is applied in the two narratives to evoke sympathy and justify their actions towards the Indians. In Hannah Dustan's accounts, she is left alone in her house to face the wrath of 'savages' with her newborn baby and her nurse. The setting of the actions, as is expected, is to make one sympathize and feel sorry for Hannah, her newborn baby, and the nurse who is at the mercy of brutes. In addition to being left alone, she is shocked at the arrival of the brutes even though her husband has been there a few moments before and has left with all h...