Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Bacon, Nature, and American Colonization

Today in class, Chad mentioned how theologians used to view nature as something that needed to be conquered by religion. They believed that people should be entirely separate from nature. This reminded me of my cultural pluralism class, when we spent a great deal of time discussing the early colonization of America and the European perception of Native Americans. One of the issues surrounding the approach to colonization was whether they viewed the Indian culture as a result of nature or nurture. The colonies in the south, who usually settled for commerce, tended to view Native Americans (and other races) as people needed to be taught to be “be white” so that they could be more like Europeans. In the north, Europeans were typically more religious (like the Puritans) and tended to view the Native Americans as savage by nature and unable to be civilized. When we were discussing this, my professor said that in around the time of early American colonization, European writers and philosophers had introduced concepts that greatly influence this type of thinking. She mentioned Sir Francis Bacon as being one of the major influences.

When we were discussing the four idols, I could see how a more scientific approach to reasoning and thinking could influence Europeans’ perception of Native Americans. It’s not necessarily that most Europeans even knew anything about Bacon—I doubt most of them were sitting around and discussing the four idols and how the Native Americans exemplified each of them. I think that they saw the Native Americans, in general, as being people who were incapable of scientific understanding. Their culture was based on nature, but they did not attempt to “conquer” nature, as the Europeans wanted to do with religion. This perception of Native Americans would have made it easier for Europeans to justify taking their land. I think that Bacon’s work (at least what we read) was intended to be used mostly as a way to improve science. I just think it’s interesting how people can use an influential idea to justify what might seem unrelated.

No comments: