“Painting Perception” By: Joshua Treece Painting Pennsylvanian Perception Commissioned by Thomas Penn (son of William), in 1771, Benjamin West created an oil painting depicting William Penn’s meeting with the Native American peoples upon his arrival in Philadelphia. The West painting depicts a small, seemingly civilized area, complete with European architecture. On the left side of the painting are the European colonists, all of whom are wearing traditional garb and were flanking a portly man in the center (William Penn). There are trees and a more “rugged” environment on the right side of the painting; the area in which the Native Americans are found. At face value, this painting appears fairly tame, with little cultural bias. However, within a critical context, there are clear boundaries between cultures found within this painting. While West may have been trying to present the natives in a positive manner, the subtle notion of European superiority still exists. The only place in which Indians are seen on the painting are on the ground and among the trees. The Indians are depicted as if they are naturally inclined to sitting on the ground, where the only European to be seen on the ground is kneeling as if he is presenting something to one of the Indians. 19th Century Perceptions While the painting by West was fairly subtle in its cultural divisions, a nineteenth century lithograph of the original West painting has drastically changed the context of the original. In this updated version, the use of color is striking. The colonists are depicted in drab colors such as grays, blacks, whites, and grays, while the Indians are depicted in vibrant blues, reds, yellows, and are even given a more proper skin tone. However, the most striking feature is the ground upon which they all stand. The colonists inhabit a gray colored ground, which may represent sand or a developed area and the Indians’ ground is shaded in grassy green colors. The Indians seem to be a ‘part’ of the more rugged, green area, where the colonists seem to fit in to the fairly developed area in the painting. This is the concept: the natives were actually considered part of the environment itself. Another nineteenth century engraving depicts William Penn and the Indians in a quite different manner. In this engraving, Penn appears to tell stories to the Indians, who are living in savage conditions. Penn’s right hand is patting a young Indian child’s head, in a father like manner. The idea of Penn feeling benevolent or even caring for the natives is not a new concept – Penn had written about his feelings of brotherhood towards the natives. These benevolent motives are at the forefront of this engraving. While the work captures benevolence quite well, the Indians are again portrayed in the negative. The Indians are scarcely clothed, while Penn wears full garb. The young Indian child with Penn is nude. The American Indian’s housing also appears primitive and savage. This artwork captures the positive aspects of the Euro‐Americans while subtly reinforcing the perceived negative aspects of the native culture. Aspects such as savagery or inferiority as implied from the lack of clothing and substandard living conditions. Moving Towards the Present Another depiction of William Penn surfaces in the 1900s. This time, the cultural differences are completely changed and the message of the image is clear. In this picture, Penn is featured on a natural background containing a very large tree, and is clearly the focus of the picture. Three Indians occupy the background and remain quite insignificant in this work as the Indians are rather difficult to spot initially. In addition, Penn is actually larger than the tree in the background. The size of Penn in the painting suggests that the Euro‐Americans had conquered both nature and the native culture. Penn, in the picture, holds a scroll in his right hand, which could be viewed as the laws or treaties that would secure Euro‐American dominance over the natives. Also, here the Indians appear as less of a threat to the Europeans, as they have decreased in size in the image, when compared to the only European in the picture. Little Change over Time From the eighteenth century to the twentieth century, the artistic depictions of William Penn did not differ greatly. These pieces of art show Penn in a benevolent and kindly light, while capturing the kind and fair attitude of Penn towards the Indians. In all of the paintings, the Indians are displayed in the “natural” areas of the picture, or those portions of the image that contain trees or other vegetation. This phenomenon suggests that over time, the artists saw the American Indian culture as a part of nature. Introduction – Me, Myself, and Indians
The study of American history has brought to my attention various themes that have distinctly
piqued my interest. One of these themes is the theme of the Euro-American colonial domination and
subjugation of the North American continent. These people who would become subjugated over the years
were the Native Americans, or simply referred to as ‘Indians.’ My research aims to explore the theme of
Euro-American perceptions of the native peoples within Pennsylvania over a varying time period
beginning in the mid-1700s. While exploring this theme, I will examine the possibility of the EuroAmerican colonists viewing the Indians as a part of nature itself, rather than as other human beings just
like those Europeans.
The choice of time period was made due to the political situation in Pennsylvania in the mid1700s. At this point in time, the French and Indian War was beginning to change the political and
cultural landscape of colonial Pennsylvania, and as such, serves as an excellent lens with which to
examine themes which may actually be more broad across colonial America.
In the past, my work had mainly focused on frontier mythology and its role in shaping
perceptions of various frontier ‘heroes.’ This work will touch on mythology, but will not focus primarily
on mythology. Rather, mythology is providing background to my personal perceptions.1 I have, in the
past, drawn heavily upon the works of Ben Kiernan and Richard Slotkin; this paper will refer to the works
of those two brilliant men, but not as heavily as my previous work. As a significant portion of this
research has been completed primarily to discern exactly what other historians have thought about similar
themes, it is only prudent to offer a brief description on the various approaches and methods that have
been taken by other, more prominent historians, in regards to perceptions and nature.
1
When examining themes such as perception, I find that it is extremely important to address one’s personal
bias so that any potential reader will understand exactly from what perspective the author is writing from. I have
included this information to help the reader infer things that I may have been thinking when creating my arguments
within this paper.
Landscapes, Perceptions, and Memory
Historians have approached the idea of the broad theme of the perceptions of Native Americans
by Euro-Americans in their cultural works in many ways. Authors such as Ben Kiernan, William Cronon,
Frederick Jackson Turner, Richard Slotkin, David Blackbourn, and Simon Schama. The existing
literature does many things very well. Firstly, the literature develops the idea that landscape does serve as
a significant piece of cultural history. Authors such as David Blackbourn and Simon Schama exemplify
this.
David Blackbourn, in The Conquest of Nature, argues that the development of modern Germany
is tied to the creation of the German landscape.2 This book was completely responsible for instilling in
me the idea that the creation of a culture’s landscape is very closely related to the development of a nation
(and subsequently a nation’s identity). Blackbourn makes a connection between German expansion and
American expansion; the work even goes so far as to suggest that American westward expansion was
extremely similar to Nazi Germany’s eastward expansion! As a result of American expansion, the EuroAmericans displaced and dominated the native peoples of the land, similarly, when Germany was
expanding eastward, they had also been doing exactly the same thing.3 While Germany was expanding
eastward, major land reclamation projects were necessary for the continued expansion. Germans tended
to look unfavorably toward the native peoples on the lands that were on target for reclamation. Those
peoples who lived on the land to be reclaimed, such as the Pripet Marshes, were deemed to be subhuman
and were expendable; the Germans found it to be perfectly acceptable to remove these people from the
lands, as they would not be using the lands in the best German interest. The idea of land misuse as an
excuse for the extermination or displacement of a peoples is not a theme confined to Germany, as I have
previously hinted.
Ben Kiernan, in Blood and Soil, cites a perceived misuse of the land to be a principal reason
given for the extermination of Native Americans on the American continent. Kiernan argues that from
2
David Blackbourn, The Conquest of Nature: Water, Landscape, and the Making of Modern Germany
(New York: W.W. Norton Company & Inc, 2006) 9.
3
Ibid., 251-309.
the earliest encounters between Euro-American colonists and Native Americans, the natives had been
viewed as a part of this new land, rather than interesting new people. Conquest of the land was expressed
in such a manner that actually cited agriculture as a main reason for the subjugation of another culture.
The natives were actually perceived as a part of nature. For example, Samuel Purchas, a colonial farmer
in the New England area, had claimed that the divine had intended for this new land to be cultivated by
Europeans and should not linger on as “unmanned wild Countrey” where the natives “range rather than
inhabite.”4 John Smith, known to many as Captain John Smith of Jamestown, Virginia, referred to
Virginia, “as Salvage as barbarous, as ill-peopled, as little planted, laboured and manured.”5
Kiernan argues that the perceptions of the natives on the North American continent were
becoming synonymous with nature, as some of the first New World explorers spread sentiment that the
native peoples were misusing the new lands. The argument becomes apparent that the colonization of the
New World was a necessity to ensure that no good land go to waste. Some colonists even take the
association of natives to nature to another level. Kiernan quotes Robert Cushman, a settler, who wrote in
1622, “Their land is spacious and void, and they are few and do but run over the grass as do the foxes and
the wild beasts.”6 This quote suggests that there existed some form of tie between the natives and the
landscape within the imaginations of some of the colonists. Cushman writes on, “They are not
industrious, neither have art, science, skill, or faculty to use either the land or the commodities of it... so it
is lawful now to take a land which none useth and make use of it.”7 Not only do the higher class
explorers equate the natives as being part and parcel with the nature (or the land), but now we see a
colonist who is practically claiming that the natives are doing nothing with the land because they are, in
some way, no better than the “foxes who run over the grass.” The natives were not using the land
correctly by European standards, so this perceived misuse of the land granted the Europeans the
justification to obtain those lands by force if necessary.
4
Ben Kiernan, Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination From Sparta to Darfur
(New York: Yale University Press, 2007) 217.
5
Ibid., 217.
6
Ibid., 218.
7
Ibid., 218.
However, force need not be necessary in the case of the Native Americans, as other forces are at
work in this situation: biological factors. These biological factors were epidemic diseases brought across
the Atlantic Ocean by the Europeans to which the natives possessed no physical immunological
resistance. These diseases decimated native populations on the North American continent, reducing the
number of natives living in what is today the United States of America from 7,000,000 people to around
600,000 people.8
The idea of germs decimating populations of natives is a major premise of Jared Diamond’s
Guns, Germs, and Steel. Diamond’s work, on its face, has nothing to do with my research. However,
Diamond does offer a theory as to how the colonists were able to dominate the natives. This is where
Diamond’s work fits in. Diamond’s main argument in his book is that the dominant cultures on the planet
were dominant due to the fact that they were able to develop guns, germs, and steel before the dominated
culture was able to develop them.9
Moving from the more broad themes presented by Kiernan and Diamond, I would like to examine
sources which more closely relate to the theme which I am researching. The next work that I would like
to examine is a rather famous idea by Frederick Jackson Turner in what is now called the ‘Frontier
Thesis.’ Turner makes the argument that the development of the American culture happened as a series
of cultural rebirths which occurred on the western frontier. He writes, “...the frontier is the outer edge of
the wave – the meeting point between savagery and civilization.”10 Turner believes that America gained
its ‘American’ traits due to the manner of its westward expansion.11 While defining this continuous
American cultural rebirth cycle which was taking place on the westward moving frontier, he claims that
8
Kiernan, Blood and Soil, 219.
Jared Diamond’s main argument in the book Guns, Germs, and Steel could best be summarized by the
thought that the societies that would eventually become the dominant societies across the planet would be those who
could develop guns, germs, and steel. His argument contests that humans were actually acting according to
biological necessity throughout history – that humans really had no decisions in the events of the past. Biological
differences in people were not what made one society dominant over another, rather, the superior societies hailed
from a more advantageous environmental home. Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human
Societies (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1999) 25.
10
Frederick Jackson Turner, The Significance of the Frontier in American History (New York: Frederick
Ungar Publishing Company, 1963) 28.
11
The idea that American cultural identity was created as a byproduct of Westward expansion seems to
draw a parallel between Blackbourn’s ideas on German eastward expansion.
9
the frontiersman takes on certain traits of the environment before changing the environment slightly over
time. What is interesting to note is that some of these environmental traits that the frontiersman would
assume were distinctly Indian (and savage). For example, Turner writes, “He [a frontiersman] shouts the
war cry and takes the scalp in orthodox Indian fashion... he fits himself into the Indian clearings and
follows the Indian trails. Little by little he transforms the wilderness...”12
Placing the ‘Frontier Thesis’ within the context of Kiernan and Diamond produces interesting
results. While Turner claims that the situation on the frontier, in essence, created the American culture, it
seems that some of this might contradict what Kiernan argues in regards to the displacement of the
natives. However, the situation seems to be that the European settlers, while Americanizing, did
internalize some useful aspects of the native society while displacing the natives, as the Indians were
unnecessary or inferior people from the perception of the frontiersmen. This represents some grim form
of pragmatism: integrate the desirable parts of the society, then decimate that society; these natives were
nothing more than another natural barrier for the Americans to defeat. This theme is also found to be
present in Nazi Germany, as revealed through Blackbourn’s work. One reason given for the Holocaust in
the 1940s was to remove ‘inferior’ peoples from the land to create living space for the German Reich.13
Blackbourn quotes Adolf Hitler as saying, “There is only one task: To set about the Germanization of the
land by bringing in Germans and to regard the indigenous inhabitants as Indians.”14 Hitler, in his own
words, likened German expansion to American expansion. This grim pragmatism, sadly, makes sense
logically: clear out one group of people to make room for another.
The idea of the frontier playing a major role in a culture’s identity is explored in Richard
Slotkin’s Regeneration Through Violence. Slotkin argues that American literature had granted nature a
form of ‘godlike’ agency in the regeneration of a man.15 This time period (1600-1860) ushered in an
interest in tales of Indians and other writings of fiction. This helped to create a romantic view of Indians
12
Turner, The Significance of the Frontier in American Society, 29.
Blackbourn, The Conquest of Nature, 260-263.
14
Ibid., 303.
15
Richard Slotkin, Regeneration Through Violence: The Mythology of the American Frontier 1600-1860
(Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1973) 223.
13
and a desire to become more Indian. Before this, however, Slotkin tells the story of Captain Lovewell,
whose troop of rangers was decimated by a Pigwackett Indian ambush. A local clergyman, Thomas
Symmes, began to preach a sermon-narrative about the incident involving the ambush of the Lovewell
party. Symmes became concerned with the perceived defeat of Lovewell by the “wilderness,” as if the
Indians were something non-human.16 The emerging tradition in the early 1700s, Slotkin argues, was a
tradition that thought the environment did not produce good. Again, Indians are depicted as part of this
wilderness and are viewed in a negative light.
When the ideas of these authors are brought together, interesting perspective are created that can
be used to examine the theme of the perception of Native Americans within early Euro-American culture.
Many of these historians seem to agree that there is definitely some form of a cultural construction of the
identity of the Native Americans in the 1600s which gradually changes through to the 19th century. While
Kiernan argues that this close association with nature serves as a motivation for Euro-Americans to
displace these native peoples, Turner’s ‘Frontier Thesis’ explains that the encounters with Indians on the
western frontier actually created American society. Slotkin’s arguments explain how the perception of
the savage of the wilderness (Indian) was perpetuated through American culture through popular
literature and the effects of this practice carried forward until the early 1900s and the rise of the cowboy
versus Indian movie phenomenon. Diamond’s arguments could be used simply to explain one of the
reasons that the Euro-Americans were able to easily displace this native culture.
The art historian, Simon Schama, takes an approach to cultural memory by relying heavily upon
the artwork and pictorial representations of a society. His book Landscape and Memory could be called
my initiation into the realm of cultural history. Schama’s work grabbed onto my attention and has yet to
let go. It is the approach to cultural history that Schama uses in Landscape and Memory that I will
attempt to apply to the case study which will be presented later in this paper.
The arguments presented here will be employed within my theme of explaining that the
perception of the natives as part of the landscape, in some instances, served as a justification for the
16
Slotkin, Regeneration Through Violence, 182.
mistreatment or even destruction of an indigenous people. I will be examining this theme by scrutinizing
various depictions of William Penn’s landing and his relationship with the Indians of Pennsylvania.
Depictions of William Penn serve as an excellent case study, as they are a theme which remains constant
throughout the span of nearly two-hundred years. The interpretations of the artists and their depictions of
Penn reveal certain possible cultural themes which may have been present in Pennsylvanian culture.
Painting Pennsylvanian Perception
Throughout history, a recurring theme is present among all cultures present on this
planet. This theme is simply a series of interactions between the various cultures. Some
interactions were mutually beneficial. Other interactions became decidedly less beneficial. One
of these interactions, which will be the focus of this paper, is the relationship between the early
Euro-American colonists and the natives who had inhabited this land previously. To be more
precise, this essay will explore Euro-American perceptions of the natives through the analysis of
various pieces of art, beginning with pieces from the eighteenth century in the region of central
Pennsylvania.
The eighteenth century seems to be a perfect time to begin analysis, as this time period
marks the point in history where the French and English were reaching a climax to their conflict
over the “New World.” This conflict culminated into what we now call the “French and Indian
War.” As the name of the war implies, the Indians (Native Americans) were allied with the
French. One might assume it natural for the British colonists, then, to perceive the natives as
either an enemy or some sort of threat.
Indians were viewed as a threat by the general population. Correspondence to Colonel
James Burd, of Fort Augusta17, attests to this. In this particular piece of correspondence to the
Colonel, the merchant wrote the letter in order to plead for a military escort from Fort Augusta to
17
Fort Augusta would have been located in what is currently the Sunbury, Pennsylvania area.
Carlisle, Pennsylvania. The author of the letter indicates that he is fearful of the “savage
Indians” which lurk in the woods.18
This is not the only instance of this manner of aid being requested of the colonial
military. Throughout the assortment of letters available for research, requests for military escorts
from one fort to another were common. This suggests that the public was generally afraid of
travel during the mid 1700s. The common reason cited in the pieces of correspondence was
Indian attacks. Logically, one might then assume that the military might be growing resentful or
even more overtly hostile toward the Indians.
This is not exactly the case, at least not for Colonel Burd at Fort Augusta. While Burd
acknowledges a perceived savagery of the Indians, he makes the following, seemingly
contradictory statement in a letter to his father dated 28 December, 1756, “...they have made war
with us by the Instigation of the French, to answer a scheme of the King of France presented to
His most Christian Majesty by a French Jesuit...”19 Burd did not view the Indians as a peaceful
people, but it seems that Burd actually was not blaming the Indians for their actions, rather he
blamed the French. This letter suggests that, in the eyes of Burd, the Indians had no agency; they
were not necessarily responsible for their actions against the British settlers.
This example shows a relatively localized occurrence of the collision of different
cultures. What, if anything, can be said about the rest of the American colonies? The answer to
that question lies in the analysis of various artistic works from differing time periods. The
answer lies in the collective Euro-American colonial imagination of the landscape. The concept
of the landscape entering into the imagination of a culture is not necessarily a new concept. In
fact, David Blackbourn argued that colonization of North America (the British colonies)
18
James Burd, Letter, Edward Shippen-Thompson Collection, Pennsylvania State Archives: Harrisburg,
PA, Box 2, Folder 3, page 2.
19
Burd, Letter, 2.
expressed a striking resemblance to German exceptionalism and the German Eastward
expansion.
The image of William Penn serves as an excellent example of a topic which possesses
iconic status within the geographic area of Pennsylvania. As Penn serves as an iconic image, it
seems only logical to see how that iconic image has been presented during different time periods
to illustrate, if nothing else, an artistic shift in the perception of Indians by colonial artists. While
artwork cannot be argued to be the de facto standard of gauging a culture’s view of the world, art
does offer a glimpse into the window that is a culture’s imagination. This analysis of art will
start with a work on William Penn dated from 1771.
Benjamin West, in 1771, commissioned by Thomas Penn (son of William), created an oil
painting depicting William Penn’s meeting with the native peoples upon his arrival in
Philadelphia. Several later works by other artists were created based upon this painting, and will
be examined later in this paper. The West painting depicts a small, seemingly civilized area,
complete with European architecture. On the left side of the painting are the European colonists,
all of whom are wearing traditional garb and were flanking a portly man in the center (William
Penn). There are trees and a more “rugged” environment on the right side of the painting; the
rugged area of the painting is the area in which the Native Americans are found. This painting,
on its face, seems to be fairly tame, while presenting no cultural bias. However, within a critical
context, there are clear boundaries between cultures found within this painting. While West may
have been trying to present the natives in a positive manner, the subtle notion of European
superiority still exists. The only place in which Indians are seen on the painting are on the
ground and among the trees. The Indians are depicted as if they are naturally inclined to sitting
on the ground, where the only European to be seen on the ground is kneeling as if he is
presenting something to one of the Indians.20
While the painting by West was fairly subtle in its cultural divisions, a nineteenth century
lithograph of the original West painting has drastically changed the context of the original. In
this updated lithograph, the use of color is striking.21 While the colonists are depicted in drab
colors such as grays, blacks, whites, and grays, the Indians are depicted in vibrant blues, reds,
yellows, and are even given a more proper skin tone.22 However, the most simple feature to
notice is the ground upon which the people are standing. The colonists are standing on a gray
colored ground which could represent either sand or a developed area and the Indians’ ground is
shaded in grassy green colors. The Indians seem to be a ‘part’ of the more rugged, green area,
where the colonists seem to fit in to the fairly developed area in the painting. This is the concept:
the natives were actually considered part of the environment itself. The sentiment of European
superiority had been building upon the American continent and these pieces of art begin to
display it, quite literally, through visual media. It is clear to see that there is a color border in
this version of the West painting. From the mid eighteenth to the nineteenth century, some
perceived differences seemed to grow, at least artistically.23
P.S. Duval later presented a chromolithograph based on the theme of William Penn and
his Indian encounter. This pictorial is done in monochrome, so color is not available as a method
of analysis. What is seen within this work is a large group of Euro-Americans and only four
20
Benjamin West, William Penn’s Treaty with the Indians when he founded the Province of Pennsylvania
in North America, Oil on canvas, 1771, The State Museum of Pennsylvania: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
21
While doing research, I had shown this lithograph to several colleagues, none of whom were formally
trained in the study of history or art. When I had asked them if they noticed a difference between the Indians and
the colonists, the initial response was color. The effect of color in this lithograph is quite blunt.
22
The colonists skin tone looks to be a very pale white in contrast to the flesh colored skin tone of the
Indians.
23
Unknown Artist, William Penn’s Treaty With the Indians, When He Founded the Province of
Pennsylvania, Lithograph, 1800s, Historical Society of Pennsylvania: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
natives. What is interesting to note about this picture is the placement of the Indians as opposed
to the colonists. The Indians, as seen in the Benjamin West painting, occupy an area with trees,
off from the center of the painting. Again, as with the other works, the Indians seem to be in a
natural state within the trees, almost as if the artist wishes the viewer to assume that the forest,
not in Euro-American society, was the proper place for the natives to be found.24
Another nineteenth century engraving depicts William Penn and the Indians in a quite
different manner. In this engraving, Penn seems to be telling stories to the Indians, who are
seemingly living in savage conditions. Penn’s right hand seems to be patting a young Indian
child’s head, almost in a father like manner. The idea of Penn feeling benevolent or even caring
for the natives is not a new concept – Penn had written about his feelings of brotherhood towards
the natives.25 The benevolent motives of William Penn towards the natives is really at the
forefront of this engraving. While the work captures the benevolence quite well, the Indians are
still portrayed in the negative. The Indians are scarcely clothed, while Penn wears the full garb
of the day. The young Indian child with Penn is actually depicted as nude. The living structure
of the Indians found in the background of the engraving seems to be primitive and savage. So,
what this artwork really does is capture the positive aspects of the Euro-Americans while subtly
reinforcing the negative aspects of the native culture. These negative aspects could be things
such as savagery or even inferiority as implied from the lack of clothing and seemingly substandard living conditions.26
24
P.S. Duval, The Landing of William Penn, Chromolithograph, n.d., Historical Society of Pennsylvania:
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
25
William Penn, Letter to the Committee of the Free Society of Traders, 1683, Historical Society of
Pennsylvania: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, http://www.hsp.org/files/pennletter.pdf.
26
Unknown Artist, William Penn, Engraving, 1800s, Historical Society of Pennsylvania: Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
To this point, the trend that seems to be shown through the paintings of William Penn
suggests that the natives seem to be some form of nature that the Euro-American settlers possess
the ability to either subdue or dominate. Until the twentieth century, the paintings maintain a
relative physical proportionality between the Euro-Americans and the Indians, however this
changes in a twentieth century depiction of William Penn.
Another depiction of William Penn surfaces in the 1900s. This time, the cultural
differences are completely changed and the subliminal message of the image is clear. In the
picture, Penn is featured on a natural background containing a very large tree. Penn is clearly the
focus of the picture. What is extremely interesting about this particular image is the background.
Three Indians occupy the background and remain quite insignificant in this work as the Indians
are rather difficult to spot initially. Also worth noting is the idea that Penn is actually larger than
the tree in the background. The size of Penn in the painting could suggest that the artist was
implying that the Euro-Americans had conquered both nature and the native culture. Penn, in the
picture, holds in his right hand what looks to be a scroll, which could be viewed as, perhaps, the
laws or treaties that could be used to secure Euro-American dominance over the natives. Again,
the idea of expressing Euro-American superiority is stressed above everything. However in the
twentieth century depiction, the Indians seem to be less of a threat to the Europeans, as they have
decreased in size in the image, when compared to the only European in the picture.27
From the eighteenth century to the twentieth century, the artistic depictions of William
Penn did not seem to differ greatly. The pieces of art previously examined all seemed to show
Penn in a benevolent and kindly light. While capturing the kind and fair attitude of Penn towards
the Indians, the artworks seemed to show the Indians in a less than positive light. In all of the
paintings, the Indians were displayed in the “natural” areas of the picture, or those portions of the
27
Unknown Artist, Unknown Title, 1900s, Historical Society of Pennsylvania: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
image which contained trees or other vegetation. This phenomenon, I would argue, suggests that
the artists throughout those times saw the native culture as a part of nature.
Much seems to be revealed through an analysis of the common theme of artwork based
on William Penn as different artists change the presentation of the topic through the years. As
shown previously, the depiction of the Indians in the William Penn artworks subtly changes as
the Euro-American colonists continue their westward expansion after the Revolutionary War.
One perception of the Indians that seemed to remain intact over a period of 150 years is the
concept that Indians were somehow connected to nature. Every piece of artwork where William
Penn and Indians were displayed always placed the Indians within a natural and savage context.
This savage context varied from living conditions to placing the Indians on the ground itself.
The context also changed as different artists modified the original colorings of earlier works,
such as the Duval work; Duval seemed to create a color barrier between the natives and the
Euro-Americans. What these pieces of art do is show that the Euro-American artists did seem to
perceive the Indians as being connected to nature. This suggests that the concept of this natural
perception could have been a perception held within the Euro-American culture during westward
expansion.
Are Perceptions Black and White?
This paper, while brief in nature, narrowly focused on the perceptions of Native
Americans by using an art analysis to illustrate potential shifts in cultural perceptions. I believe
that forms of art analysis would be valid when applied to situations both within and outside of
the current United States of America. With the similarities between German and American
history, I would, at some point in the future, desire to continue this work and apply the methods
used within my study of the depictions of William Penn to German artwork.
What was interesting to see with the case study was that, at least in artwork, my initial
theory pertaining to the perception of the Native Americans was accurate. The depictions of
William Penn, seemed to show a fairly negative perception of the Indians (even though William
Penn was actually thought to be one who sympathized with the natives) and that the perceptions
almost always placed the Indians in a nature context. I believe that this work would greatly
strengthen the arguments presented by Ben Kiernan, as I do not feel he devoted a significant
amount of research time to exploring perceptions found within the artwork of an area to back up
his claims.
Joshua Treece – Personal Historiography Essay
In my pursuit for knowledge at Shippensburg University, I’ve encountered a recurring
theme that seemed to dominate my collegiate education. This theme, simply, is colonialism.
Every history course that I have taken at this institution dealt with the underlying legacies of
colonialism.1
Where I devoted the majority of my historical research was on themes of perceptions of
those involved in colonial situations. This interest in perceptions, or cultural imagination, began
during the Theory and Practice course taken during the Spring of 2008. In that course, I focused
my research on the colonial legends of Simon Girty and the less prominent Captain Jack.
My research in the Theory course was done in order to offer my insight on the question
of Simon Girty’s so called “renegade” or “traitorous” perception through literature in the mid
1700s into the mid 1800s. This was inherently comparative, as I compared the so called
renegade Girty to the more heroic perception of Captain Jack.2 What my research showed,
however, was that both of these men were actually quite similar. Where Captain Jack was
looked upon favorably for incorporating “savage” culture into his own, Girty was often popularly
referred to as “Dirty Girty,” and was often the subject of many scary tales warning children to
stay out of local forests for fear that Dirty Girty would apprehend them.
After showing the two frontiersmen’s striking similarities, I then tried to attack the notion
that one was a hero and the other a villain. My answer to this quandary was quite simple: where
1
These courses included The U.S. and Vietnam, Sub-Saharan African History, Islam in Central
Asia, and personal research in Theory and Practice and also the Senior Capstone class.
2
The summarized story of Captain Jack is as follows. Captain Jack was said to have been an
avid hunter and woodsman. He had gone out for an afternoon of hunting and fishing. Upon his
arrival home after the outing, he found his cabin burned to the ground and his wife and daughter
murdered, presumably by local Indians. From that point on, he vowed to devote his life to the
slaughter of any Indian that crossed his path. Literature portrayed this man heroically, similar to
the more well-known Davey Crockett.
Captain Jack was committed to slaughtering the “savages,” Girty joined with them. What is left
out of the popular portrayals of Girty, however, is the reasoning for his decision to join with the
Delaware Indian tribes that inhabited lands west of Fort Duquesne. Girty’s reasoning was that he
did not agree with the British-American’s unfair policies towards the native peoples.3 Other
information omitted from many popular accounts of Girty was the fact that he had actually made
great efforts to assist any European colonists that were taken captive by Delaware raiding parties.
He generally would try to use his unique situation to aid the release of any Euro-American
captives.
I concluded the work on Captain Jack and Simon Girty by explaining that Girty was no
more of a monster than Davey Crocket. Popular British literature and influential people had
basically condemned anyone who stood against the policies of the British crown – this was the
case of Simon Girty.4 Essentially, Girty had returned to the “savages;” he had returned to nature
and thus, was no longer a part of “civilized” British society. As I would further explore in the
Senior Seminar course, a special cultural construction of nature was present in situations of
colonization, especially when two cultures are coming into close contact with one another and
those cultures become entangled in conflict.
3
This is significant, as Girty was kidnapped as a child and was actually raised by the Delaware
Indians. After he had peacefully parted ways with the Delawares, he had been employed by the
British crown as an interpreter. After much service to the crown, Girty was met with
disappointment, as he was never given a promotion to the position of Lieutenant in the British
army. So, Girty really possessed a twofold motivation to oppose the British. He then returned to
the Delaware Indians, who later allied with the French during the French and Indian War. Girty
generally roamed around the Detroit area.
4
One extremely damning piece of propaganda presented against Girty was a compilation of
captivity narratives which detailed the capture and execution of Colonel William Crawford. The
compilation was published by Hugh Henry Brackenridge, a prominent figure in politics in the
Fort Duquesne region. The account tells of Girty using horrific methods of torture before ending
the life of Crawford in a most inhumane manner.
This is where I began my work in the Senior Seminar course; I had the plan on
continuing where I left off with Girty and Captain Jack, but my research actually directed me in
an unexpected direction. I began to become extremely interested in the work of Simon Schama
after reading Landscapes and Memory. Schama’s work will always be considered my true
introduction to the very interesting field of cultural history. Schama’s use of artwork and iconic
images to show cultural perception instantly grabbed my attention and I had vowed to use his
method in my capstone research. To that end, I wanted to take an iconic image that would be
presented in a painting or other form of displayed art and see how different artists interpreted it
over a certain timeframe. The iconic image became depictions of William Penn’s treaty with the
natives when Penn first arrived in Pennsylvania. I had chosen to start the analysis in the
seventeenth century and go forward into the nineteenth century. The reason for choosing
William Penn came in the fact that three main factors remained constant through every painting
over the time span of two hundred years. The first constant, which should be quite obvious, is
William Penn. The second constant is that in every painting, Native Americans are depicted in
some form or another. The third, and less obvious, constant is that the so-called natural
environment is represented.
The analysis focused not so much on William Penn, but the manner in which the Native
Americans and nature were portrayed, and how that portrayal changed over time. The results of
this analysis were quite interesting. Initially, depictions show Indians and Europeans in
generally the same size. The only difference is that Europeans were usually standing or sitting
on boxes, where the Indians seemed to blend in the with natural environment, sitting directly on
the ground at most times. As time progressed, the Indians in the William Penn depictions
became smaller and more difficult to find in the painting; I argued that as the Indians were
becoming more displaced (and eradicated) they were becoming more of an artistic “decoration”
rather than a prevalent issue.
Simon Schama’s Landscape and Memory inspired the work I conducted in the Senior
Capstone course. His use of paintings and other pieces of representative artwork to make
inferences about cultural constructions of nature urged me in the direction that perhaps artwork is
another piece of the puzzle, so to speak, of the perception of Native Americans through the eyes
of Euro-Americans from the 1700s into the present.
The Capstone paper marks a stark
deviation in my standard research practices. Previously, I had placed significant value on
archival sources above all else. For the Senior Capstone paper, I ventured into “virgin territory,”
so to speak. I had never attempted to interpret paintings or other visual depictions as a primary
source. For all intents and purposes, I believe the Capstone course served its purpose fully: I had
drawn concepts from all previous history (as well as Political Science, Biology, and even
Theatre) courses and encouraged me to pursue new directions for research.
In addition to my work in the Senior Capstone, I was also enrolled in a graduate level
Oral History course. In this course, my research, for once in my collegiate career, was focused
on a more contemporary topic that was completely removed from colonialism: the Three Mile
Island Disaster of 1979. This research was actually a group collaboration, which yielded
impressive results. Our goal of the research was to examine oral history narratives of a specified
social demography and then compare those to one another in an attempt to identify similar
trends. Our oral history narratives came primarily from the Dickinson College TMI oral history
project.5 One common theme that our group of scholars discovered was that many of the
5
Dickinson College, of Carlisle, Pennsylvania, conducted an extensive oral history project and
interviewed over 400 narrators after the events of Three Mile Island in 1979. See:
www.threemileisland.org.
narrators made jokes or heard jokes of some sort about the disaster. This spawned my interest in
advancing the group research and focusing on jokes. So, my final project in that course explores
the use of jokes and humor in response to natural and man-made disasters. My secondary
research on this topic covers such disasters as the space shuttle Challenger explosion of the
1980s, the Chernobyl disaster, and even the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. As a case
study, I, again, utilize the Dickinson College TMI oral history project. This time, however, I am
not focusing on any specific demography; rather, I focus on a geographic region.6
While I spent much of my undergraduate work dealing with colonial themes, both
domestic themes and global themes, as a part of the Public History program at Shippensburg, I
have been exposed to some of the most interesting methods of conducting research. My only
regret, however, is that Public History was not necessarily an emphasis in many of the
undergraduate courses.
I would like to conclude this essay by expressing my extreme satisfaction with the
knowledge that I have gained during my time at Shippensburg University. I had entered into
college, initially as a computer science major and later converted to the study of history after the
my first year of class (and a subsequent break for ‘soul searching’). I had expected to learn
places, dates, times, etc. What I did not expect was to study such theoretical approaches to the
academic pursuit of history that would mould me into the historian that I have now become. I
have found, and embraced, the study of cultural history. To a lesser, but significant, extent, I
have gained an appreciation for the field of environmental history and would, at some point in
the future, study that field in much greater depth.
6
At the time of the writing of this paper, the work has not yet been completed on said project.