The Many Pictures of Pocahontas

After looking at the different artworks of Pocahontas in class it made me more curious to find more. It is amazing to see the amount of differences between all the works. The only one made while she was alive is extremely different than many of the images we have of Pocahontas today. In my mind I visualize the stereotyped dark skinned, deerskin covered, feather-wearing skinny and beautiful “Pocahontas”. It was amazing to see the different takes on her. They mostly said more about the artist though than the actual person of Pocahontas. Even the one painted while she was still alive feels like it must have some of the artist’s interpretations of her mixed in as well.

I found yet another portrait that was made of Pocahontas around 1610. It mixes both her Indian dress with some European aspect (the necklace). Unlike most works, this photo seemed to have less European influence in how she is portrayed. Just another picture to add to our collection.

 

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1615189,00.html

Pocahontas as a Character in America's Story

When learning about Pocahontas, I would have to say my understanding of her is much more in character, than in symbol or historical figure. (Historical figure meaning more facts about Pocahontas herself) There really aren’t too many sources that tell dates, attributes or other qualities of the person Pocahontas. Thinking about Pocahontas as a symbol is doable, but I find myself most studied in the way she is a character. I believe she encompasses story and is remembered for her importance to the history of our nation.    

The reason I think of Pocahontas more as a story than a figure or symbol is because of the way she is portrayed in society. I have learned some minor information about her in textbooks in past classes but what seems to be more important were her actual works in story form.

The other way I know Pocahontas is from her Disney movie, which I haven’t seen in a very long time. I remember the story through this media, but I don’t remember factual information. In movie form more values are shown, but I still find the story much more understood than symbolism of Pocahontas.

Why is that the impression I am left with? I know that there are values added into the movie, but why don’t they stand out as much in my mind? I am going to re-watch the movie again tonight and that will probably answer my questions or even change my impression.

EGO?

“Thus God indueth thise savage people with sufficient reason to make thinges necessarie to serve their turnes.”

-First Hand Accounts of Virginia, 1575-1705

How can these people be savage when they are making complicated boats, have unique fishing techniques, etc?

It is quite clear that these English people think highly of themselves. Even when writing about the complicated and very successful techniques for fishing, the writer talks down the Native Peoples.

When the English were starving and struggling during their first years it seems funny that these “savages” were able to survive so well.

Although this writing seems to compliment the Indian techniques, it has underlying quotes like above that completely belittle them at the same time.  

Statue of Freedom

The time and thought that went into making the Statue of Freedom made me curious as to what the other plans looked like. Below is the second draft, with the liberty cap. It is interesting that the final product did not contain this symbol, but instead wears a helmet with a feather.  

The idea that the liberty cap represented freedom from slavery would have been seen as hypocritical since slavery was still at large in the States.

Instead, they had to make adjustments to this sculpture which I thought was interesting to learn about.

This made me ask, what sort of complications and conflict this would have caused, had the statue remained with the liberty cap.  

 

http://picturinghistory.gc.cuny.edu/item.php?item_id=185

American's View of Landscape

Have we “as America” changed in the way we view land. Is it just a resource to use?

I have to think that yes, we still use our land as a device for money. We grade and change landscape in order to fit our best needs. Hills are leveled, forests are cut, and Americans make the land as profitable as possible. I think it is to some degree always true though of human nature. To get the most you can with what is given. To some degree every person, besides hunter/gather type, are all altering the landscape to some degree. The main difference is to what degree. America as a country today seems to do this at a very high rate.

So no, this is not a new concept, Americans still, and may always, view land in terms of profit.

Positve/ Negative Events

I was asked after one of my posts if a group of people can bond from only negative events or challenges, or if it was possible to have commitment from positive events.

I found it much easier to think of negative events bonding people together than positive. In history, people tend to get together because of traumatic experiences. After 9/11 the United States seemed to “come together” through this negativity. When America fought for its freedom, it again was rebelling against the undesirable British rulers.

After thinking it through though, there are positive motivations for coming together also. People get together for positive celebrations, like births, and anniversaries. On an even bigger scale, something that stuck out to me was the Olympics. I went to them last year and the memories and experiences I gained from it seem so surreal. Seeing people of all nations, together for a positive moment was incredible.

So, overall, I feel like both positive and negative moments can bring people together. It seems though, like negative events either stand out, or occur more frequently though.  

Centers of Community

“The New England village therefore assumed great symbolic importance to the Puritans, as a mythic as well as social and commercial center.”

-Landscapes of the Sacred, Belden C. Lane

When I think early European settlements in the New World, a typical layout of the village comes to mind; one with the religious meeting house in the center and houses, farms and other buildings working around that center. This was typical for these villages, and having the meeting place in the literal as well as the theoretical center was of main importance to the Puritans.

When I think of St. Olaf, no true center comes to mind. The layout was not planned in that way. Are Buntrock and the Chapel the theoretical center? It the literal center closer to Melby hall?

I began to think of my home town. Even in the downtown I can’t think about where the center truly lies. Possibly in the local shopping mall? When I thought of the theoretical center though, several places came to mind. The “Education” hill in town with the elementary, Jr. and high schools. The movie theater and dining area. The bottom of education hill where several churches and temples are located. The town hall.

The main concept I gathered was that the Puritans had a known center, while today that is rarely the case in most towns, cities or even college campuses.

Do we lose a sense of community by not having a known “center”?