Vega 1

Rafaela Vega
Professor Paul Thur
Expo S-20E
18 July 2012

Explaining Away The Problem of History

The historian can never escape the limitations of his or her own position in
history and so inevitably gives an account that is an extension of the circumstances
from which it springs (Tompkins, 115). Every individual is different. Consequently,
differences lead to the diversification of perspectives. If people have different ways of
seeing the world, they have different ways of analyzing and expressing one similar
situation. Referring to history, the fact mentioned before suggests that because of
diverse perspectives, what is told about history reflects the view of a historian, not an
objective idea or event. Bergers theory points out that mystification is the process of
explaining away what might otherwise be evident. (146). This author suggests that
we need to know the present, and be able to analyze situations in a clear way in order
to avoid mystifying the past. However, it may be conceived that when a historian
mystifies aspects of his/her statements they are clearing their ideas, but what is
actually happening is that by explaining away, they omit important aspects of
history itself.
Tompkins, in her essay, explicitly states the different reasons for the
diversification of perspective and versions of the events that make up history. Each
historians experience leads to biased statements that will later become the facts of
history itself. What Vaughan, Rowlandson, and Wood have in common is that each
Vega 2
one of them mystifies aspects of the events and situations they narrate. The reason
that leads to the subjective account of the events that happened during the seventeenth
century between Puritans and Native Americans was the Eurocentric bias. Europeans
based everything they wrote about and everything they expressed on what they
already knew, from their own point of view. History is an interpretation; it is never
completely objective because authors explain away some aspects that may not seem
important for them but are crucial to history itself. Even if Berger says that
mystification is unavoidable it is not a dead end. If an authors words are examined
closely, people are able to determine the authors way of seeing. Each historical
account has been molded and interpreted by the perspective of the person who
narrates the facts, making it subjective.
Vaughan points out many interesting ideas about the relationship between
Puritans and American Indians, but those ideas seem to lack accuracy and be based on
a biased basis. In the early chapters of the book Vaughan speaks about the equanimity
that both societies had, that each one of them had fairly distributed attributes that
maintained a stable relationship in the new continent. As it is expected, Vaughan is in
favor of the Puritans, and in this case he is not only trying to justify what the Puritans
did in the newly found continent, he is also explaining away the real behavior that
the invaders had towards the natives when they arrived to their territory. He mystifies
the Indian aspect because of his Eurocentric bias, which leas him to view the different
situations in a European perspective, not taking in account what the Native Americans
cared about. Also, Vaughan seems to explain away moral accountability because
the way in which the Europeans invaded the new continent was not morally meeting
the European standards. In other words, he is stating that the end justifies the
means, defending the Puritans invasion of Native Americans land. When people
Vega 3
read something they are looking at the situation through the lens of the authors view,
and in this case, Vaughans lens explains away some aspects concerning the real
behavior Puritans had towards the American Indians.
Vaughans contradicts his first statement just chapters ahead in his same book.
He says that the root of the misunderstanding [about Puritans and Indians] . . . lie[s]
in a failure to recognize the nature of the two societies that met in seventeenth century
New England (qtd. in Tompkins 105). The nature of the two societies was clearly
different; they were two groups of people that had never met before and were now
expected to live in the same place, sharing the same resources and land. What
Vaughan does is that he refers to the nature of the Puritans as unified, visionary,
disciplined, and dynamic (qtd. on Tompkins 105). It is certain that this claim is an
example of Vaughans absolutist ideas. He seems to reduce every aspect of the Native
Americans by claiming them to be completely wrong and the Puritans being entirely
right and good. He also seems to consider the Native Americans as an obstacle in the
path to progress. American Indians were divided, self-satisfied, undisciplined, and
static (qtd. on Tompkins 105). Vaughan Eurocentric bias leads him to explain
away some aspects of the situation such as the good features of the American
Indians and the lack of morality in which the Europeans invaded the newly found
continent. The mystification in his statements leads to the subjectivity of the facts he
points out.
Rowlandson wrote a testimony of her situation as a captive of the American
Indians basing her ideas on her own way of seeing and analyzing the events she lived
from a Eurocentric perspective. Rowlandsons text is considered a primary source.
Primary sources are supposed to have a more certain idea about an event in history
because they are the direct telling of what happened, but they are not objective due to
Vega 4
their principal bias. In this case, the primary source is the testimony of a woman who
was captured by the American Indians. Rowlandson was a religious lady who
attributed every situation of hers to God. She didnt see the American Indians as
individuals; she reduces and compares them with the devil by utilizing a
dehumanizing way of thinking. The Puritans absolutist ideals would implicate that
because the Europeans are right and the Indians are wrong, they should associate
Native Americans with the devil. On the other hand, she chooses to include their acts
of kindness in her account; no, said he, none will hurt you. Then came one of them
and gave me two spoon-fulls of Meal to comfort me, and another gave me half a pint
of Pease; which was more worth than many Bushels at another time (qtd. in
Tompkins 112). Throughout her own statement, Rowlandson narrates the first time
she cried in front of her captors, the Indians, and she is taken to King Philip, the
leader of the American Indians, and instead of pointing out this important event she
directs her focus to Tobacco. For though I had formerly used Tobacco, yet I had left
it ever since I was first taken (qtd. in Tompkins 112). It seems that Rowlandson feels
obligated to shift her focus to Tobacco, which makes sense considering that
Rowlandsons audience were people with a Eurocentric bias that mystified the good
features of the Native Americans. This fact makes it seem that Rowlandson is
explaining away an important aspect of her captivity that has to do with King
Philip; she is not letting us see everything that happened. This author explains away
the good side of the Indians because she isnt able to provide evidence of the Native
Americans point of view.
Wood makes a wonderful description of how American Indians were, how
they behaved, which were their traditions, all kinds of positive ideas about them, but
he never mentions negative features. His book had the objective of providing a
Vega 5
description of the American Indians to Europeans so that they migrate to America.
These Indians are of affable, courteous and well disposed natures, ready to
communicate the best of their wealth to the mutual good of one another; so
perspicuous is their love that they are willing to part with a mite in poverty as
treasure in plenty (qtd. in Tompkins 113). Woods statements are clearly biased.
Authors write based on a biased basis, which means that because each author has
different motives, they write to fulfill their cause. It seems that Woods way of
seeing is implying a probability to see the Native Americans as potential
neighbors. When people read the writing of any author, they are reading and making a
mental image, or idea, only about what the author wants us to picture, which is a way
of explaining away aspects that the author doesnt want us to see. The reason why
Wood explains away some important negative aspects about the natives is because
Woods motive is trying to encourage Europeans to go to America, and this leads him
to write a placid and welcoming description of the American Indians in order to make
immigrants feel anxious of transferring to the new continent.
History is a subjective interpretation of events; objectivity cannot be achieved
in this context. Authors and historians have their own way of seeing and interpreting
events, which leads them to write based on a biased basis. In Tompkins essay several
authors pointed out their own ideas about the situation and the relationship between
Puritans and American Indians. History is an interpretation; it is never completely
objective because authors explain away some aspects that may not seem important
for them but are crucial to history itself. Each author has a different appreciation of
the events that occurred during the seventeenth century in the newly found continent.
The different motives, as well as perspectives, of each historian, cause this
diversification of ideas because in this case all of them were explaining away some
Vega 6
aspects of the situation in order to achieve their goal of letting us see only what they
wanted us to see. If an authors words are examined closely, people are able to
determine the authors way of seeing, even if Berger says that mystification is
unavoidable; which states that explaining away is not a dead end. Although we are
able to identify what each author sees, all of the authors use this technique to show
us only what they want us to see, making their own assumptions, which is why we
will never know exactly what happened in the past.


















Vega 7
Work Cited
Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. Ways of Reading. Ed. David Bartholomae and
Anthony Petrosky. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2005. 141-165.
Tompkins, Jane. Indians: Textualism, Morality, and the Problem of History.
Critical Inquiry 13.1 (1986): 101-119. JSTOR. Web. 10 July 2012.