Through the centuries, nature was used in literature to symbolize the way ancestors used to live. Times might change, but human’s connection to the world of nature would always stay the same and show their concerns with life and death, the beginning and the ending. The theme of nature especially deeply relates to the life of native Americans. This Term paper will address the aspect of symbolism in relationship with nature as suggested in Red Jacket’s Indian Speech and Benjamin Franklin’s Remarks Concerning the Savages of North America. To analyze the symbolism of people’s relationship with nature, the paper will compare Benjamin Franklin’s work to Red Jacket’s Speech in terms of various rhetorical devices like metaphors and emotive use of the language.
The symbolism in a nation’s relationship with nature implies setting the people’s priorities and opinions about themselves. Connecting this statement to Franklin’s work, one can conduct a nation’s motive and how they regarded themselves. Franklin describes nature as a dangerous place and emphasizes in his work how the Americans are different from the savages, as they have disconnected themselves from living within nature, from forests and hunting. He tells a story of how the Indians rejected the offer of sending half a dozen of their young men to the college. Franklin explains that Indians have already experienced it, and the result of the studies did not match their expectations. The author points out that the Indians valued the ability of a man to live and make his own safe space in nature. Franklin describes that the three main social roles for Indian men included the roles of Hunters, Warriors, and Counsellors. The studies provided by the colleges of northern provinces never covered how to build a cabin, kill an enemy, or hunt, so they were useless to the Indians.
The inability of college studies to fulfill the needs of young Indian men emphasizes the clash of the differences between the nations. The things and procedures acknowledged by one nation as essential education were long forgotten by the other nation. Moreover, understanding of nature was required for the young man to become a real man, according to the Indians. This metaphor speaks about how the nations treated nature and its symbolism in their lives, thoughts, and ideology.
In addition to how the Americans were disconnected from nature at Franklin’s time, he dedicates one fragment of his work to the story of the Spirit, told by an Indian Orator from the Chiefs of Indians. In the discussion led by a Suedish Minister, he described the principles on which the Christian Religion is founded. The Indian Orator then proceeded to tell his story of the Great Spirit and how a young woman descended from the clouds. The woman received the offering of deer’s tongue from the starving Fathers and later rewarded them with the plants destined to nourish them and their descendants. The contradiction in the way the author described these stories emphasizes the connection between the Indians and nature.
The Red Jacket’s Speech approaches the theme of nature in a way that is quite different from Franklin’s work. The fragment that describes the role of nature is centered around the Great Spirit and the gifts he gave to the Indian people. The author explores how the Indians use nature in their lives as if nature is the home for the Indians. The animals that the Great Spirit gave are the food that he provided, the bear and beaver skins are how the Great Spirit gave them clothing, and corn is the bread from the Great Spirit. Moreover, Indians conceived the hunt “as a spiritual quest, in which the spirit of the hunter must overmaster the spirit of the game animal before the kill can take place” (Tompkins 108). The deep spiritual connection of Indian people to the Spirit is still strong, as nowadays Indians describe the Great Spirit as “central to their worldview, consisting of foundational beliefs and communal practices” (Giordano et al. 168). In Red Jacket’s speech, nature and religion, the Great Spirit, are inseparable.
By further analyzing the speech, one could recognize that the Indians take nature as a gift from The Great Spirit. In fact, the religion given to the Indians by nature and the Great Spirit teaches the people to love, respect, and unite. When white people tried to force their religion on Indian people, the contradiction was met with a deprecation. For white people, the religion was a story of origins and moral purity; for the Indians, the religion was fused in everything they did and everything around them. Taking everything as a gift from the Great Spirit explained how much it meant to the Indians to give a part of their lands to white people and why they have granted white people’s forefathers. Overall, Indian Speech illustrates the sincerity of Indians’ religion and the deep connection of the religion to nature. Addressing the symbolism aspect of nature, one could say that nature is the home for Indians, and religion is the rules and beliefs they live up to in that home.
Both texts are great examples of Indian representation in literature and illustrate the complex meaning given to American culture. Comparison of the texts shows that both of them possess the theme of symbolism in nature for the Indian people and how they have explained the spirits through nature’s gifts. Franklin’s depiction of qualities, which a young Indian man should obtain in order to become a real man echoes in the way Jacket tells in his speech about The Great Spirits’ gifts. Franklin emphasizes that a man should know how to live and survive in nature, or else the man is considered useless. Jacket’s speech adds to this point by stating that the animals are the food that the Great Spirit provided; he also taught Indians how to take them. Not knowing these things would mean ignoring the Indians’ beliefs, and that is why they have considered the young men who did not obtain this knowledge to be useless.
Both texts use the story of the spirits to address other issues that the texts focus on; Franklin’s story of the Spirit emphasized the differences between the white people and Indians. Red Jacket used the story to explain Indians’ motives and to illustrate how much it has meant to give up some of their lands to the white people. Both of the spirits stories connect to the nature aspect of life – one in Franklin’s work talks about the plants Indians received as a gift to fill the needs of their descendants. The Red Jackets’ story tells that everything in nature comes from the Great Spirit, and nature is designed specifically for Indians to live there.
In terms of rhetorical devices, both authors use multiple metaphors to describe the closeness of Indian people to nature. In Franklin’s work, he pictures plants of maize, beans, and tobacco never-seen-before by Indians as gifts from the Spirit. Franklin emphasizes differences in thinking of two nations by drawing an analogy between the qualities that the Indians refer to real men, being a good runner and a good hunter, to the college educations. In the description of the Spirit, Franklin hyperbolizes the size of Spirit as a “beautiful young woman descend from the Clouds seat herself on that Hill which you see yonder among the blue Mountains” (Cohn 419). Jacket, in his work, uses metaphors to illustrate the purpose of each gift the Great Spirit gave to Indians, “the buffalo, the deer and other animals” were food, “their skins” were the clothing (Sagu-ya-what-hath). Aside from that, Jacket uses hyperbole to emphasize the feats of Indian forefathers as they “extended from the rising to the setting of the sun” (Sagu-ya-what-hath). Both authors use metaphors and hyperboles to emphasize the main points of the texts.
However, the emotional tone that the authors have decided to use in the texts is quite different. As pointed by Cohn, Franklin’s remarks are sometimes viewed as an expression of his “belief in simplicity as root of the happiness” (Cohn 413). Thus, the motive explains the informative and inspirational tone in Franklin’s Remarks and the benevolent and warm tone of the text fragment about the Spirit. Other people, as told by Cohn, took the remarks as an “attempt to neutralize the stories of Indian savagery” (Cohn 413). The idea of Franklin neutralizing the stories of Indian savagery comes from the point that those stories bothered the potential emigrants (Cohn 413). In general, the tone of Franklin’s remarks was supposed to calm the growing confusion among the people. This explanation shows an example of literature and its direct contribution to American society.
The emotional tone of Jacket resembles religious texts; it is forceful and passionate. The text’s tone develops by starting from giving gratitude to white people for letting the Indians speak what they think and proceeds to accuse white people of bringing poison upon Indians. The main point of Jacket’s speech was to illustrate why Indians’ religion should not be disturbed by the white people and to demonstrate that the author uses the tone development. The transition from the origin story of the Spirit to the way white people deceived Indians by taking their land emphasizes the disappointment the Indians felt towards the ones that asked for “a small seat” (Sagu-ya-what-hath). To illustrate the unfairness of the events, Jacket proposes a metaphor that the Indians gave white people corn and meat, and white people gave poison in return. Further, the tone of the text progresses to philosophical, as the author reasons that the Great Spirit made both white and red children different so that they could complement each other. The tone development of the text helps the reader or the listener to resonate with the author.
Both texts explore the themes of nature, symbolism in nature as of home for Indians, and both use rhetorical devices like metaphors and hyperboles to illustrate the deep connection of Indian people to nature. Both Franklin and Jackets’ texts emphasized the complexity of Indians’ understanding of the world and nature by describing them as gifts from the spirits to Indian people. Both texts acknowledge that for Indians, the religion, nature, and the place they live in are inseparable. Although authors decided to use different tones to cover the topic in their texts, they both use emotional tone to pursue their initial motives and convey their ideas to the reader.
Aside from the texts being valuable pieces of literature on American Indian relations, both texts possess the Indigenous Communal Narratives genre elements. In particular, the transition to the Indigenous Communal Narratives from the ‘As-Told-To’ style of stories, pointed out by Laubscher, plays a relevant role in the texts (3). Both texts use the first-person style of telling and incorporate old stories told by the ancestors and add commentary to the texts by depicting reactions from the audience. In Franklin’s remarks, the Missionary is disgusted with the tale of the Spirit and claims the story to be a “fable, fiction & falsehood” (Sagu-ya-what-hath). The Indian replies to the Missionary, reminding him to stay polite and believe the story about the Spirit as the Indians believed the historical facts that found Christian religion. In Jacket’s speech, he illustrates the reaction from the Missionary, as Indians offered him to shake hands before parting ways. The Missionary rejected them and said that Indians’ religion is a devil’s work. In terms of the storytelling genre, providing a reaction on the topic from one of the characters is not a frequently met element.
Both Franklin and Jacket’s texts add complexity to American culture. Franklin might have seen happiness in the Indians’ living; however, he also questioned himself if “it is the design of Providence to extirpate these savages in order to make room for cultivators of the earth” (Kidd 179). Despite the Jacket’s proposal that both cultures could benefit from each other and prosper in their differences, he could not deny the unfairness of relations between the Indians and white people. Perhaps, as Tompkins pointed it, “it would be unreasonable to expect such societies could live side by side indefinitely with no penetration of the more fragmented and passive by the more consolidated and active” (106). The study of the texts contributes great sense to the American relations with Indian people and introduces a valuable perspective on the topic.
In conclusion, the texts connect by the theme of nature and symbolism the authors give to nature. Both Franklin and Jacket acknowledge that nature and religion are inseparable for Indians. In terms of rhetorical devices, both authors showed great examples of using analogy, metaphors, and hyperboles. In addition, both authors used metaphors in a similar way to introduce nature’s gifts. Although Franklin’s text is more informative in tone, and Jackets’ speech was more passionate, both authors used the emotional tone to convince the readers. Both texts are important not only as examples of literature on American culture, but as valued commentary of stories about Indian savagery and differences between Christian religion and Indians’ religion. Both authors contributed a valuable addition to the complexity of American-Indian relations and put an important perspective on the topic.
Works Cited
Cohn, Ellen, editor. The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, vol. 41, September 16, 1783, through February 29, 1784, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2014.
Giordano, Prosek, et al. (2020). “We Are Still Here: Learning From Native American Perspectives.” Journal of Counseling & Development, vol. 98, no. 2, pp. 159–171.
Kidd, Thomas. Benjamin Franklin: The Religious Life of a Founding Father. Yale University Press, 2017.
Laubscher, Emma. Review of The Routledge Companion to Native American Literature, edited by Deborah L. Madsen. Transnational Literature, vol.9 no. 2, 2017, Web.
Sagu-Ya-What-Hath. Indian speech, delivered before a gentleman missionary, from Massachusetts, by a chief, commonly called by the white people Red Jacket. His Indian name is Sagu-ya-what-hath, which being interpreted, is Keeper-awake. Nathaniel Coverly, 1805.
Tompkins, Jane. “‘Indians’: Textualism, Morality, and the Problem of History.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 13, no. 1, 1986, pp. 101–119. JSTOR, Web.