I teach a unit on early explorations of the New World. Because these narratives are in Spanish and then translated into English for the Norton Anthology, I have found that it's important to give a variety of angles into the texts since students can't "close read" with the same precision that they would be able to if they were reading the author's direct words. We read three Spanish explorers in this unit: Christopher Columbus, Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca, and Bernardino de Sahagún. In the following blog post I will trace my general strategy for these three authors.

The Norton's selections of Columbus' writings are unusual. The editors selected two letters that Columbus wrote: 1) Letter to Luis de Santangel Regarding the First Voyage (February 15, 1493); and 2) Letter to Ferdinand and Isabella Regarding the Fourth Voyage (July 7, 1503).  The first letter makes Columbus look like a hero who has discovered a marvel, and the second makes him look like a deluded man embittered by his fall from grace.

It is useful to compare and contrast the two letters to each other: what kind of persona does Columbus create for himself in each letter? How does he consider the Native Americans? How does he consider the Spanish? In the first letter, why does he reference things like the nightingale and honeybees which were not in the New World but were in Spain? To whom is he writing in either letter and how does that affect the way we understand his tone?

The Norton's selection opens up students to critique Columbus, but it also maintains enough ambiguity that they could still walk away from their reading with a rather simplistic and laudatory view of him still intact. I find it useful to bring in other voices to challenge their uncritical view. First, I give them a critique of the encomienda system that emerged from Columbus' policies, a critique that was written by Columbus' near contemporary Bartolomé de las Casa.  A selection of de las Casas' The Very Brief Relation of the Devastation of the Indies (1552) is available in the Norton on pp. 38-42. In this section, de las Casas outlines in harrowing detail the atrocities that the Spanish were inflicting on the natives of the Caribbean. I like to ask my students: what is de las Casas’ seeming purpose in writing and how does that compare to Columbus? Compare and contrast the way that Columbus and de las Casas speak about the New World and its inhabitants. Also consider the way that these two early modern explorers use Hispaniola in order to draw contrasts between Native American culture and Spanish culture.

I also ask the younger students to read the essay by Ian W. Toll, “The Less Than Heroic Christopher Columbus,” in The New York Times, September 23, 2011, available online at this link, which is a really lovely review of Laurence Bergreen's Columbus: The Four Voyages, 1492-1504 (2012). Toll summarizes various "readings" of Columbus throughout history and praises Bergreen for his assessment of Columbus as one who "became progressively less rational and more extreme, until it seemed as if he lived more in his glorious illusions than in the grueling reality his voyages laid bare.” Bergreen's book would be good to excerpt for older students, but Toll's editorial in The New York Times is sufficient for my purposes with ninth graders. I ask them to explain Toll’s criticisms about Columbus and to consider if they accord with de las Casas’ text. Additionally, if the early modern explorers’ account of Hispaniola can tell us something about the way they view Spain, does Toll’s account of Columbus tell us something about how he views modern-day America? Why do you think we celebrate Columbus Day anyway?

Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca had a crazy, crazy life. He came to the New World as part of the ill-fated 1527 Narváez expedition. After surviving a hurricane and losing the ship, Cabeza de Vaca and a handful of other survivors made rafts and floated from western Florida to Galveston, Texas, where they were captured and enslaved by the Capoques and Hans Indians. After years of enslavement, Cabeza de Vaca became a merchant and then eventually a faith-healer among the Indians. He and the other three remaining members of the expedition traveled by foot all over what is now the southwest United States, amassing thousands of followers. Over an eight-year period of wandering, Cabeza de Vaca ended up in Mexico City where he was reunited with his countrymen and then eventually brought back to Spain. He wrote of his adventure in The Relation of Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca, which he offered to Charles V as being "of no trivial value for those who go in your name to subdue those countries and bring them to a knowledge of the true faith and true Lord and bring them under the imperial dominion."

The Norton excerpt focuses on the initial period of enslavement and the reunion with the Spanish in Mexico city. I like to supplement the Norton's brief section with passages from The Relation that focus on what it was like for Cabeza de Vaca to become a faith-healer. As the excerpt above suggests, Cabeza de Vaca is on board with the colonialist project, but he also critiques the Spanish practice of enslaving the Indians, saying, "they received us with the same awe and respect the others had--even more, which amazed us. Clearly, to bring all these people to Christianity and subjection to Your Imperial Majesty, they must be won by kindness, the only certain way."

The way that he describes becoming a faith healer is especially useful for exploring his divided sense of self.  He alternates between Machiavellian cunning as he seeks to augment the natives' misconception that he is from heaven and heartfelt wonder that God has seemingly chosen him as a vessel to bless, heal, and unite people who are sick or at war with each other. In short, he alternates between wanting to use the Indians and sincerely wanting to help them.

I ask my students to trace the "narrative" or agenda that is pro-colonization, pro-Spanish, and pro-exploitation. Then I also ask them to trace the "counter narrative" that is critical of colonization, the Spanish, and exploitation. We consider also what might account for tension between the two narratives: is this symptomatic of a divided loyalty, a divided sense of self, a product of being in a liminal space between "Spanish" and "Native American"? Is Cabeza de Vaca the "first" American?

Bernardino de Sahagún also had an amazing life, although his was one of study instead of one of adventure.  He was a Franciscan missionary priest who spent more than 50 years studying the language, culture, and beliefs of the Aztec Indians. He translated parts of the bible into Nahuatl, the Aztec language. He also wrote the General History of the Things of New Spain which is considered the first ethnographic study to use objective and consistent methods for gathering information. Because of his innovations in ethnography, he is known as the "first anthropologist."

Very simply, Sahagún created a survey that he administered to the Aztecs about a wide range of topics. He administered the survey in their native language, Nahuatl, and he interviewed a wide range of people (including women). The survey was very simple in its basic premise. The written responses--given in Nahuatl and then translated into Spanish in a side-by-side translation--suggest that the majority of Sahagun's questions were three-part: 1) what is a ____? 2) what is a "good" ____?, and 3) what is a "bad" ____?

Sahagún intended the General History to be an all-purpose reference book: a dictionary, a cultural snapshot for missionaries who were coming in to convert the natives, and a record of a culture to preserve it.  He also worked with the Aztec very closely. The research assistants for his study were all Aztec, and he employed Aztec "feather painters" to illustrate his book. Here are some of their beautiful illustrations:

It is really useful to ask students to articulate what the responses suggest is valued in certain groups. You can look at professions, at age groups, at gender groups, etc. Students can pick up patterns such as children are expected to be obedient (no matter the gender), and adulthood seems to be measured according to whether or not a person is responsible for teaching a younger generation. That is, adulthood is measured by having had children or by adopting children from other family members. It is also useful to think about similarities and differences between our culture and the Aztec culture. Although there are definite differences (according to the General History, a "good" grandfather is one who beats one with nettles!), there are also many, many similarities between our culture and theirs. This document suggests and invites empathy with the Aztecs.

World Digital Library offers high resolution scans of all volumes at The Florentine Codex, named for the best preserved copy of Sahagún's book (located at a library in Florence).

I find it very useful to compare and contrast Cabeza de Vaca and Sahagún, especially around the concept of empathy.  I use the following as a paper prompt: Compare and contrast the representation of the Native Americans that we see in Cabeza de Vaca and in Sahagún.  How does the form of these two texts (the method the writers use to present information) affect the content of their writing (the actual description of the New World and its inhabitants)?

The two forms are so different: one is a series of definitions and the other is a series of event set into narrative form like an adventure story. The former highlights Sahagún's willing decision to empathize with the Aztecs (even in their own language and giving preference to their own words) whereas the other shows Cabeza de Vaca as he is forced to undergo a partial (but still incomplete) process of acculturation to the native cultures of the American Southwest.

The prompt, and indeed the entire unit, help to combat the "historical relativists" who excuse the darker side of the colonialist project as critiqued by Bartolomé de las Casas. We see that there was a vibrant and discursive debate about how the Spanish should interact with Native Americans and even moments of questioning why the Spanish would want to conquer the New World at all. Underlying these moments of questioning is the quiet insistence that Native Americans count as humans, and that the Spanish are opening themselves up to condemnation by history and the world for greed and barbarity.  Such a pedagogical move might even make students question why we want to rewrite history to excuse what happened at the beginning of Europe's conquest of the Americas.

I teach my survey of Early American Lit from the Norton Anthology. I find their selection of texts from Smith to be a bit perplexing, so in order to flesh out class discussion and engage my students, I draw from a wealth of online sources too, which I would like to share with you. These sources help to supplement what we read in the Norton.

First of all, the entire class reads the short selection from A Description of New England, and we open with a discussion of Smith's rhetorical deftness.

We begin class with a discussion of the idea of something being requited in triplicate. Here and elsewhere, Smith defends the colonialist project in America as something that benefits 1) God, 2) England, and 3) the individual colonist. He uses this three-pronged approached to convince people to move to Jamestown.

Ask your students to identify when he is addressing each one of these goals, and how he does so.  For example, when he discusses how colonization will benefit England, he uses multiple angles to make it seem absolutely necessary for his contemporary society to send people off to Jamestown.

Here, Smith is discussing the social problem of primogeniture in England--the custom whereby younger sons of the landed gentry were essentially disinherited so that the family could preserve the large estate for future generations through the sole line of the eldest son.  If you are interested in the topic of primogeniture, especially in the context of literary studies, I recommend the now-classic essay by Louis Adrian Montrose, "'The Place of a Brother' in As You Like It: Social Process and Comic Form," Shakespeare Quarterly 32.1 (1981): 28-54.

In this passage, Smith is arguing that the younger, disinherited sons of noble families can be sent to America where they will not only bring themselves honor and praise but also stop being such a troublesome burden to their families. But the efficacy of shipping off England's problem citizens doesn't end with the noble (but impoverished) classes; he also suggests that sending of the vagrant lower classes will solve problems for England.

In addition, he considers England's standing in terms of international politics:

For those of you unused to reading the typeface of early English books, the passage above, taken from Early English Books Online (EEBO) since it is not in the Norton, says the following:

It would be an history of a large volume to recite the adventures of the Spaniards and the Portugals [i.e., the Portuguese] : their affronts and defeats, their dangers and miseries, which with such incomparable honor and constant resolution, so far beyond belief, they have attempted and endured in their discoveries and plantations, as may well condemn us, of too much imbecility, sloth, and negligence. Yet, the authors of those new inventions were held as ridiculous for a long time as now are others, that do but seek to imitate their unparalleled virtues.

Here, Smith appeals to national pride: Jamestown will not only remove all sorts of unwanted people from England, giving them important jobs in the process, but also serve as means to augment England in the world's eyes, making her into a stronger rival against Spain and Portugal.  He is telling his readers that they can have their cake and eat it too.

This rhetoric of gain upon gain is written everywhere in the Description of New England, especially where Smith declares that the work in New England is as easy as it is profitable:

He seems to disregard the law of supply and demand, claiming that it is both easy and extremely profitable to fish in New England. Ask your students to think about how that normally works. If it is THAT easy to catch 300 codfish in a day, why would any of your neighbors pay you to fish for them?

Asking students to think about the purpose of this writing is a very productive exercise. The discussion topics above help students to see A Description of New England not as a "description" but as an advertisement or a piece of propaganda. His truth-claims are about as credible as an advertiser's would be: we should think of him as "selling" the idea of "New England" (the first time this description was used to name this geographical region) rather than accurately reporting what things were like there. As such, his report tells us more about the social psyche of England in 1616 than it tells us about real life in the Virginia Colony.

This discussion makes a very good transition into supplementary material about John Smith's description of his rescue by Pocahontas. The Norton has the very brief mention of Pocahontas in Generall Historie of Virginia, New England, and the Summer Isles (1624). The passage of note is towards the end of their excerpt:

A longer description of Pocahontas herself appears in Smith's 1616 letter to Queen Anne, which you can read at Digital History, a site maintained by the University of Houston.

I ask one student out of the group to read the Norton excerpt of the Generall Historie and the 1616 Letter to Queen Anne.  This student is responsible for presenting his or her outside research to the class. I give the presenting student the following guiding questions:

Compare John Smith's accounts to Disney's 1995 movie, Pocahontas. If you haven’t seen the Disney movie, the most basic differences between the historical accounts and the Disney movie are 1) that Disney makes Pocahontas 18-20 years old instead of 12-13 years old and 2) that the movie explains Pocahontas' actions as motivated by romantic (and mutual) love.  There is also a helpful chart comparing Smith’s story to the Disney movie at this link. Chief Roy Crazy Horse (of the Powhatan Nation) also discusses the Disney movie, a discussion that you can find at this link. Why does Disney turn the historical events into a love story? What does that narrative do for America—how does it romanticize the story of the early interactions between English settlers and Native Americans? Why it has been so important to elevate Smith's story to the status of a national myth, especially a love story? Are their elements of Smith's accounts that suggest or lead to this rendering of the story into the basic plot of Romeo and Juliet?

There are many, many benefits to this exercise.

First and foremost, it corrects student misconceptions about this moment in history since many students are more familiar with the Disney version than they are with the historical accounts.

Secondly, it asks them to think about whether Disney's version of the events serves an ideological purpose of some sort. Some students are quick to dismiss the idea that Disney's version is a form of propaganda--especially those who have not read the excerpt by Chief Roy Crazy Horse. They tend to think that Disney is telling a fairy tale, like Cinderella and Snow White, but harmlessly setting it into the context of a real, historical event. These students argue that this is simply an American version of Romeo and Juliet.

The student presenters, however, are quick to point out that Disney breaks the colonialists group up into groups of "bad" colonists who want to exploit the land and who resort to violence in order to do so and "good" colonists who want to love the Native Americans. Disney presents the problem of America's genocidal war against the Indians as a result of the "bad" colonists, and not the colonial project itself. As one of my students said in class, "Disney lets white Americans feel less guilty about what happened."  This discussion lead to an interesting debate in class: if history is converted into a myth, then who is responsible for how the myth is disseminated into a culture? Is it our fault for not reading the history books and learning as best we can about what "really" happened? Or is it Disney's fault for telling an easy, seductive story that makes us feel better about what happened? Who is responsible when myths and stories cause interference with history?

Another faction of students put forth the argument that a competing or additional problem with Disney's rendering of the events into a love story has to do with gender. These students argued that Disney--at least in 1995--didn't know how to market stories to girls without including romantic love. John Smith's biography and the circumstances of his rescue by Pocahontas are interesting enough that Disney didn't have to resort to the love story plot. The real-life events could have been formatted into a story about a man's personal growth through a physical journey (like Finding Nemo) or about the duties that children have to families (like The Lion King) or about children resisting familial pressure (like Brave); however, Disney didn't opt to tell the story of Pocahontas through any of those genres. Students speculated that Disney thought the movie would sell better if it continued its success in the princess genre, which served to reinforce the narrative that women find their happy ending through fulfillment in romantic love.

It is important to tell students that Disney did not event the love story--this is a narrative tradition that goes back hundreds of years. They people at Disney weren't writing in a vacuum, but they did make a conscious choice to perpetuate the love myth. Click on the photos above and below to view pages in the Pocahontas Archive, maintained by Edward Gallagher of Lehigh University, where you will see examples of mid-nineteenth century versions of Pocahontas as a love story.

The third benefit of this project relates to John Smith instead of Disney and/or earlier adaptations of the Pocahontas story. One of the questions we raised is what our responsibility is in determining what "really" happened in history. But of course John Smith is not a neutral reporter as we determined in our reading of A Description of Virginia. He is really good at "selling" ideas to his readers. This allows us to think about how his letter to Queen Anne might also be selling something; even if the basic facts are true (something that historians contest in and of itself), Smith might have alternate or hidden intentions in how he tells the facts of the story. How might Smith be "selling" the idea of Pocahontas, first to Queen Anne and then, ultimately, to us? What does he gain through telling this story?

As you can see, John Smith's writings--particularly about Pocahontas--raise complex questions about colonialism, gender, and historiography. Despite the complexity of these questions, even young students can begin to formulate arguments and opinions about the cultural work that John Smith attempts to do in his writing. Supplementing the readings in the Norton with these additional resources will help students to see the stakes of how we tell history.