White Gifts, Red Gifts, Relationships, and Misunderstandings

Cooper's writings on Indians and the chapter 7 from Deerslayer present fascinating incites about the relationships between white men and Indians. Through both works, Cooper also expresses the separate cultures themselves by the gifts that they give to one another: White gifts and Red Gifts. In Cooper's Notions of the Americans: The Indians, a gift of "peacock feathers" is presented to the Indian Peterlasharroo. The gift is regarded nicely from Peterlasharroo. I find that this gift of feathers presents the white man's interpretation of the Indian. This gift, which is not much more than pretty feathers to white men is considered a "brilliant" to red men. It may be my own speculation (and i understand that the gift was valuable to the Indians), but I smell exploitation, which was a very abundant aspect of the white and red man relationship.

In The Deerslayer, we are shown that the gifts of white men also come in the form of forgiveness, humility, fairness, and respect. Deerslayer attempts to settle his dispute with the Indian with common kindness (you go your way, I will go mine). Unfortunately, this gift of respect is not returned by the Indian who gives the gift of trickery, deceit, and a tomahawk. The Indian is the weaker man here (and in most relationships with the white man), his use of cunning is perhaps both his most powerful and damnable gift (although he fails in his trickery). It would appear that neither side has a strong grasp of each others gifts. The Indian recognizes the white man's gift of "go your own way" as simply an opportunity, while Deerslayer feels morally bound to respect and his word. However, the white man will surely come to recognize the success of guerrilla warfare.

Franklin and Irving Do It Their Way

Ben Franklin's persona in his autobiography is that of a confident, well educated, and systematic man. When compared to Washington Irving's fictional character Ichabod Crane from The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, we begin to find similarities between these men. They are both intellectuals (Crane is a school teacher) and lady killers as well. Franklin creates a system for success which helps him to become a self-made, wealthy, and important individual, but Crane aims to use his intellect to win over a young girl for her father's wealth. Thus, both of these men act for their own personal gain of wealth and power. A major difference between these men is the rational "from the ground on up" ethic of Franklin and the "one big plan" of the fictional Crane."

In Irving's Rip Van Winkle, we find a much more giving character that is much less interested in the highlights of society than our other two characters. Van Winkle is somewhat of an adult version of Huck Finn. He only wants to be left alone to do what he pleases. Winkle also enjoys helping others with their work, but does not enjoy doing any work for himself. Here, Winkle further differs from Franklin and Crane who act only for themselves.

Interestingly, none of these men seem to have too much favor for early Puritan ideals. The concept of Predestination does not appear to bother these men at all: each acts exactly the way that they want, despite their obstacles (Franklin's lower class condition, Craine's stick-like appearance next to Brom Bones, and Winkle's rough wife). Early trend setters perhaps?

These characters also provide similar and different views of their world. Franklin's world is very intent on rules, which we can recognize from his father assigning him to the printing business like his brothers and then having to present his writings under a separate identity. This is of course a much more real world in Franklin than in Irving's fantasies. Although Rip Van Winkle tells a tale of fiction, it also displays a worldly change in America from before the Revolutionary War to after.

The devil discovered on Bourbon Street

Last semester in my Philosophy class, my professor said that all forms of moral restraint in American culture comes from Puritanism. While I don’t necessarily believe that, I don’t think it wouldn’t be a stretch to say that the Puritans would not approve of Mardi Gras’s seeming lack of morality. If anything, Mardi Gras would be seen as another extension of the devil’s influence, another trail set forth to prove their predestined salvation.
Though there are no Puritans left to ask, their bizarre descendents were out in full force on Mardi Gras night. Anyone who has ever been down in the quarter has seen the groups of men carrying signs reading, “repent or burn” and makeshift crosses. By the end of Mardi Gras, I had a pocketful of cards telling me what a despicable human being I was and despite what a wretched life I have lived Jesus still was considering not sentencing me to an eternal hell, which for me, would have just been an eternity on Bourbon Street.

A Letter On Religion Today

Dear Fellows

The state of religion today in America has become somewhat of a weakened back up plan, or fallout. Although there are a great many Americans who stand strong to their faith and visit Church regularly, most people live their lives carefree of religious duty. Many Americans have stated to me that they are Catholic and believe in Jesus Christ, yet they do not pray to God or follow the laws of the Bible. In fact, the only time most Americans do speak to the lord is when they are either in trouble or in need of something. However, this is not to say that all Americans have become evil and entirely sinful. America still retains a “good guy” persona, just with less religious discipline. A study by the Pew Forum of Religion and Public Life found that “More than one-quarter of American adults (28%) have left the faith in which they were raised in favor of another religion.” This is the nation of free men and women, and freedom entitles the belief in any or no religion.

The Pew Forum also presents a chart which details the religious status of Americans today.

In God’s favor, most American classrooms still require their students to say a prayer, as well as the “Pledge of Allegiance,” which of course refer to America as “one nation under God.” Therefore, we have not lost our religious backbone at all; we have just developed into a less radical following.