Matoaka's Story/Part 3 Captain John Smith (1607-1609)

Captain John Smith c. 1624. (Houghton Library, Harvard University; public domain via Wikimedia Commons)

John Smith is the Englishman most associated with the legend of Pocahontas. He was born into a middle-class English farming family. He worked at various trades as a teenager, but dreamed of a more adventurous life. At 16 he joined the French army of Henry IV that was assisting the Dutch forces fighting for independence from Spain. Later he attempted to make his way to eastern Europe to fight against the Ottomans. En route he became both a victim and ally of pirates. While fighting the Ottomans in Hungary, Smith was promoted to the rank of captain and awarded a coat of arms, making him an official gentleman by European custom. In 1602 he was captured by an Ottoman force and sold into slavery in Constantinople. He eventually escaped and made his way back to England. 

Smith became involved with the Virginia Company’s colonial project. Although his experience was valuable, and his military accomplishments had technically promoted him to a higher class in English society, most of his well born colleagues looked down on him. Smith’s confrontational demeanor only increased the tension. He was charged with plotting a mutiny before the Company’s ships made it to Virginia. Once the ships landed, it was revealed that the Virginia Company had included Smith on the governing council, so the charges were dropped, however his enemies in Jamestown continued to rally opposition to his leadership throughout the following years.

Smith was charged with exploring outside the fort and making contact with the local people. His early attempts at trade yielded limited success, leading him to brandish his pistol at local leaders and take food by force. Smith made contact with several tribes over these first few months, gathering food alternately by trade or force. He was eventually captured by a Powhatan hunting party while exploring their territory. His men were killed and he was paraded around local villages to allay any fears of the newcomers and their strange weapons. He was then taken to the Powhatans’ capital village, Werowcomoco, to be interrogated by Wahunsenaca himself. There, the Paramount Werowance (an Algonquien word for chief or leader) offered to make the English “tribe” a member of the Powhatan Nation. As part of this offer, Smith underwent a series of initiation ceremonies to make him the English werowance. 

Both the Mattiponi oral history and most non-Native historians cast serious doubt on the claim that Pocahontas intervened and saved his life, as children were not included in either the religious ceremonies to induct werowances, or the ritual killing of criminals (usually carried out by bludgeoning with a club). Smith’s early letters about the incident did not mention Matoaka being involved. She first appeared in this anecdote in Smith’s 1624 publication about his time in Virginia, 8 years after the Virginia Company made her a public figure in London to promote investment in the colony. Even generous biographers doubt there is much truth to the story, and argue it was a literary invention he used to make his book more enticing to English readers. 

It is possible Smith met Matoaka in Werowocomoco, but it is more likely he met her during one of her first visits to Jamestown, accompanying a party delivering Wahunseneca’s gifts of food. She may have been included as a symbol that the delegation came in peace, or at her own request. Matoaka is recorded in many sources, including Mattaponi Oral History, as having been outgoing, and curious to learn about the foreigners she believed to be her people’s new allies. Smith claims to have exchanged language with her at Jamestown and several sources document her playing with the English children, enticing them to cartwheel with her. 

Europeans arriving by ship were not unknown to indigenous North Americans. The Spanish had been inviting native people to trade and travel on their ships for decades, often kidnapping and enslaving them in the Caribbean or Europe. Some had even returned. Above all, Wahunsenaca was interested in maintaining his nation’s territory and defending it aggressive neighbors. He was wary of the Europeans, but also interested in gaining access to their weaponry and metal tools. To these ends he supplied the colonists with food and information that would help them survive. However he, and his subordinate werowances throughout the region were cautious in their acceptance of the invaders. 

After releasing Smith, Wahunseneca sent the colonists gifts of food every few days and frequently requested that Captain Newport, the man Smith had informed him was the colony’s true governor, to visit him at Werowocomoco. This took place in February of 1608. It was a tense visit and Wahunsenaca expressed his disapproval that there were always Englishmen under the Captain on guard ready to shoot. Despite this, Newport presented him with several gifts, including a greyhound dog. More interested in English arms, Wahunsenaca was able to secure a promise of “some swords.” The two also exchanged young boys they each hoped to use in the future as translators and informants. The English left Thomas Savage with the Powhatan and took a boy named Namontack. Captain Newport took Namontack back to London with him, leaving Smith to guide Jamestown in his absence. When he returned in the Summer of 1608 he sent word that Wahunsenaca should visit him at Jamestown to swear loyalty to King James and receive a crown. The Paramount Werowance insisted that Newport come to him. He did, accompanied by Smith, Namontack, and a detail of guards. Wahunsenaca accepted more gifts he had little interest in, and Smith had to “lean hard on his shoulders” in an attempt to compel him to kneel to receive his crown from Newport, who settled for a light stoop. 

The colonists’ failure to supplement the Powhatans’ gifts with their own sustenance led to more raids on Native villages and crops along the rivers. Wahunseneca summoned Smith back to his capital and chastised him for the violence, as well as his reluctance to trade firearms with the Powhatan. He warned Smith that if the violence did not cease that his people would retreat into the woods and leave the English to starve on their own. Smith also makes the claim that Matoaka saved his life a second time during his last visit with Wahunsenaca, by warning him that her father intended to kill the English party before they left. This story is not as fantastic as the first featuring Matoaka, but is still debated among historians. 

Smith always angled to get the upper hand over Wahunsenaca, but was conscious of the colony’s dependence on him. As a leader on the council he resisted calls to raid even more nearby villages and continued to require the colonists to earn their meals with work, giving his enemies on the council more ammunition in their efforts to remove him. Restraining the colonists became harder as drought and dissent increased. After suffering debilitating burns in a gunpowder accident while asleep in a boat in 1609, he returned to England, never to see Tsenacomoco again. The remaining colonists reported to Wahunseneca that Smith was dead. Soon after this the English found Werowocomoco deserted and violence between the colonists and the Powhatan escalated quickly.

Smith made several attempts to return to North America, first to Virginia, then to New England. Both efforts ultimately failed and he continued writing about his life, travels, and the “New World” from England. When Matoaka visited London in 1616, he made a point to call on her, receiving a lengthy rebuke. Unlike his account of their meetings in Virginia, there were English-speaking witnesses to this conversation, so it is likely his transcription of her words here was closer to the truth than some of his other accounts.

Smith died in England in 1631. Like Matoaka, his story has been embellished and retold countless times, more often to lionize the United States and European society, than Smith himself.

Sources:

‘Pocahontas And The English Boys’ Bridged 2 Wildly Different Cultures- Colorado Public Radio

Virginia’s First Peoples: Losing the Land- Dr. Helen Rountree, The Fairfax Network

Matoaka's Story/Part 2 The Powhatan Nation

Pocahontas’ real name was Matoaka (Mat-oh-ah-ka). She was the daughter of Wahunsenaca (Wah-hoon-sen’-ah-ca), the leader of a nation of indigenous Virginia tribes that the English came to call the Powhatan Confederacy or Powhatan Chieftainship. 

This alliance consisted of some 30 tribes. Each had a leader known as a werowance, who in turn pledged loyalty to the Paramount Werowance or Mamauatonick. Wahunsenaca was a young man when he inherited the leadership of the nation. It then consisted of 6 tribes: the Powhatan, the Pamunkey, the Mattaponi, the Appamattuck, the Arrohateck, and the Youghtanund. Over the course of his life, Wahunseneca, a Pumunkey, expanded the Powhatan, through war and diplomacy, to over 30 tribes throughout eastern Virginia. Most scholars argue that Wahunseneca exercised ultimate authority over all his tributary tribes, making it more akin to an empire, than an alliance.

Little is known for certain about how Wahunseneca brought most of the Powhatan tribes under his rule, but some of the last, incorporated shortly before the arrival of the Jamestown colonists, were through warfare. He ordered the annihilation of the nearby Chesapeake tribe soon after making contact with the English. 

However, the traditional portrait of Powhatan as a fearsome chieftain concerned only with conquest may be overblown. The Mattaponi Oral History recorded that Wahunseneca ruled more through diplomacy, unlike his brother Opechancanough (O-pee-ken’-can-oo) who was considered a war leader. The Powhatan were far from the only tribal nation seeking to grow its network, there were others to the north, west, and south that they frequently came into conflict with. As the Paramount Werowance, Wahunseneca was responsible for organizing the defense of his country, as well as redistributing the wealth he collected as tribute, throughout it. These benefits of belonging to the Powhatan Nation, maintained through judicious leadership, likely brought many tribes into it voluntarily.  

Political and military leaders like Wahunseneca and Opechancanough were not the only type of leadership within Powhatan society. There were also “priests'' known as quiakros (kē-ah-krōs) that organized and taught the many cultural protocols that guided life within the Powhatan country they called Tsenacomoco (Sen-ah-cō-mō-cō). Ceremonies for war, agriculture, courtship, etc., were all necessary to maintain the favor of Ahone (the creator) and other deities. Like many indigenous societies, Powhatan religious beliefs were not usually distinct from the other parts of everyday life, such as work and war. In addition to religious knowledge, quiakros also maintained knowledge about labor, politics, and wealth, making them invaluable councilors to wereowances.  

Wahunseneca married a woman from every tribe within the nation, bearing children with them in order to foster kinship and unity. These wives would live with him temporarily before returning to their home villages where they were free to marry again. In this way Matoaka had many siblings throughout the Powhatan Nation. According to the Mattaponi Oral history, Matoaka’s mother, Pocahontas, married Wahunseneca for love, rather than to cement political kinship. 

Matoaka’s mother died giving birth to her. Her older sister, Mattachana, cared for her for much of her life. Her testimony informed much of the Mattaponi Oral History regarding Matoaka. She lived with Mataoka in Henrico where she was a prisoner, and later the wife of John Rolfe, and also accompanied her to London in 1616. Mattachanna’s husband, Uttamattamakin was a quiakro and councilor to Wahunseneca. 

There has always been confusion about Pocahontas’ other names. The Mattaponi Oral History claims that at birth, she was named Matoaka, which means “flower between two streams.” Matoaka has been recorded as revealing her birth name to English people both immediately before her baptism, and to a painter when she sat for a portrait in London. A few of the older primary resources mention that Pocahontas was a nickname, and that her proper name was Amonute. This is sometimes presented as her birth name, and sometimes as a separate name; it is unclear to me if some sources are indicating 3 names or if Amonute is a different version of Matoaka. The Mattaponi Oral History does not mention any other names besides Matoaka and Pocahontas. 

She is believed to have been between 10-12 in 1607 when the first colonists arrived in Jamestown. The several eye-witness accounts of her in these early years all describe her as naked, indicating a prepubescent child. Powhatan women were noted by early writers as wearing “aprons” about their waists and did not wish to be seen without them. There are several accounts of the young daughter of the Powhatan “chief” playing with English children in Jamestown, showing them how to do cartwheels. These are the years she would have known John Smith, making the possibility of a romance, or her presence at the ritual that inducted him into the Powhatan Nation, highly unlikely. 

After Smith departed and tensions between the Powhatan and the English rose, Matoaka did come of age, and married a Patawomeck (pat-ah-ow-mek) warrior named Kakoum. The Mattaponi Oral History recorded that they had a son and lived together in a Patawomeck village north of her father’s village, Werowocomoco (where-ō-wō-cō-mō-cō).

Sources:

Eastern Algonquian Social Structure in the 17th Centrury- Jamestown/Yorktown Museums

Paramount Chief Powhatan-  Jamestown/Yorktown Museums

Werowocomoco: A Powhatan Place of Power- National Park Service

Matoaka's Story/Part 1 Her Name

Pocahontas’ real name was Matoaka (Mat-oh-ah-ka). She was the daughter of Wahunsenaca (Wah-hoon-sen’-ah-ca), the leader of a nation of indigenous Virginia tribes that the English came to call the Powhatan (Pow’-ah-tan) Confederacy or Powhatan Chieftainship.

Matoaka is believed to have been 10 or 11 in 1607 when the Virginia Company colonists established Jamestown. Her mother’s tribe was the Mattaponi (Mat-ah-pō-nī’). The Mattaponi Oral History recorded that Matoaka’s mother, Pocahontas, died in childbirth. That is why her people referred to her as Pocahontas, the name the English would make famous. According to the Oral History it means “Laughing and Joyous One.” It was most often translated by non-Native writers as “mischief,” “Little mischief,” and “little playful one.” 

The legend of Pocahontas claims that she saved an early colonial leader, John Smith, from execution because she instantly fell in love with him, and that she convinced her father to provide the colonists of Jamestown with food. Even with scarce historical sources, it is easy to see through such a fairytale. No child in any society would have wielded such influence over such a crucial decision. Europeans were not unknown to the Powhatan. Wahunsenaca offered the English colonists membership in the Powhatan Nation in order to access their weapons and contain their spread throughout his country. 

Matoaka frequently visited Jamestown along with the Powhatan delegations that brought food and other trade goods to Jamestown. Several primary sources recorded her as an outgoing child who was fond of playing with the English children she met there. John Smith wrote that he learned many Algonquian words from her and shared English ones in return. Smith continued as the colony’s representative in military and trade matters with the Native population for its first 2 years, but he had many enemies in Jamestown and struggled to maintain authority. After suffering serious burns in a gunpowder accident in 1609, he returned to England for treatment, never to see Virginia again. His fellow colonists told Wahunsenaca that Smith was dead.

From this point on, relations between the English and the Powhatan deteriorated. Although Smith had repeatedly acted outside of his agreements with Wahunsenaca by raiding for more food than the Powhatan had gifted, he had also tried to limit these excesses to maintain the alliance as long as he could. After he departed, the English colonists and his diplomatic successors tried to take a harder line with their hosts. Raids increased and fertile land along the river banks was taken by force. As a result, Wahunsenaca put an end to the gifts of food and attempted to starve the English out by moving Powhatan villages further inland. He sent word that the colonists should leave his country or confine themselves to Jamestown. He would no longer guarantee their safety beyond the fort.

The colonists of Jamestown experienced many struggles over the following years, but Matoaka did not reappear until she was kidnapped by Captain Samuel Argall in 1612. The Mattaponi Oral History recorded that before this she had married a Patawomeck (pat-ah-ow-mek) warrior named Kakoum and had a son. She was living with her family in a Patawomeck village when Argall found her. The colony’s governing council used her as leverage against Wahunsenaca to secure food, land, and stave off any direct attacks on their growing settlements. 

In 1614 Matoaka converted to Christianity, was renamed Rebecca, and married the colony’s secretary, a tobacco planter named John Rolfe. She gave birth to a son named Thomas soon after. In 1616, the Virginia Company brought Matoaka, her family, Captain Argall, and the colony’s governor to London in order to promote the venture and secure more investment. Matoaka’s sister, Mattachana, also accompanied her. It was Mattachanna’s testimony after her return from England that informed the Mattaponi Oral History about what happened there. Matoaka spent a year in England where she learned more about the English and their intentions in her country. In the spring of 1617 the party set sail to return to Virginia, but Matoaka became sick before they reached the sea. She died and was buried in Gravesend, England. 

Some European and American histories claim she fell ill days before setting sail, and others only after boarding the ship. The Mattaponi Oral History recorded that she only became sick after dining with her husband and Captain Argall on the ship, and that she told her sister that she believed “the English” had put something in her food.

In the following weeks I will explore these stories and sources in more detail. Why would Matoaka consent to marry an Englishman after being kidnapped? Was Wahunsenaca unwilling to attack Jamestown for fear of her safety, the English guns, or some other reason? Why would the Virginia Company want to murder Matoaka after having used her so successfully to wring concessions from her father and to present the image of a successful colonial project to the English public, royalty, and prospective investors?

There are no easy answers to any of these questions. I will explore them through several primary and secondary sources. The Mattaponi Oral History regarding Matoaka, published for the first time in 2007 as “The True Story of Pocahontas” is an invaluable resource that previous generations had no access to. It adds a much needed perspective from Matoaka’s own people to a story that has been told and retold by European and American authors with little or no regard for the woman behind the myth.

Sources:

The True Story of Pocahontas: The Other Side of History, From the Sacred History of the Mattaponi Reservation People.

Dr. Linwood “Little Bear” Custalow and Angela L. Daniel “Silver Star.” Fulcrum Publishing: Golden, Colorado, 2007.

Video interview with Angela L. Daniel and Linwood Custalow- Book TV, C-Span

Book Review- The One Feather

February 9, 1674- Third Dutch-Anglo War Officially Ends

Flag of the Dutch West India Company

At a time when most European countries were ruled, wholly or partially, by monarchies, the Dutch people of The Netherlands (Holland and its colonies) began experimenting with democracy. The United Provinces of the Netherlands was a republic created from 7 provinces that had seceded from The Spanish Empire’s northern region. One of its strongest sources of wealth was the Dutch East India Company, a private company created to conduct trade throughout eastern lands, famously in Indonesian spices. Like the British East India Company, it had the power to conduct wars on foreign soil and enjoyed monopolies on trade in certain areas or of certain commodities. 

The Dutch West India Company was a separate corporation created to conduct similar colonial projects in the Atlantic. It established colonies and outposts on the coasts of Africa, Brazil, the Caribbean Islands, and North America. Like their colonial competitors, the Dutch West India Company used their infrastructure to circulate numerous commodities, as well as enslaved laborers, mostly from Western and Central Africa.

On the island of Mannahatin (Delaware/Lenape language) the Dutch established the colony of New Amsterdam in 1624. Further up the Hudson River near modern-day Albany they established Fort Orange. These northern parts of New Netherland, struggled to compete with more populous English colonies to the east, and attacks from Native peoples to their west. Additionally, the Dutch colonists’ resistance to feudal land policies designed to fund the colony made it a far less successful property in the West India Company’s portfolio than its Caribbean and African counterparts.

The English and Dutch Empires came into frequent conflict through their various naval assets. Several years after the first Anglo Dutch War (1652-54) a small fleet of English ships surrounded New Amsterdam. Director-General Peter Stuyvesant decided there was little point in resistance. He negotiated recognition of the inhabitants property rights and surrendered to the English without a fight in 1664. 

The Second Anglo-Dutch War began soon after (1665-67). Like the first, it consisted primarily of naval battles in Europe. Five years later the Third Anglo-Dutch War (1672-1674) erupted. In 1673 the Dutch sent their ships to surround the renamed New York. It was renamed again, this time New Orange and remained under Dutch control for almost a year until it was returned to the English at the close of the war. 

This was codified on February 9, 1674 in the Treaty of Westminster (The Second Peace of Westminster). Whether governed by the English or the Dutch, New York retained a strong Dutch influence and distinct colonial population, even as it brought together disparate peoples from around the world, many against their will. 

Sources:

The Rise and Fall of New Netherland- National Parks Service

Anglo-Dutch Wars- Encyclopedia Britannica

New Amsterdam- Dutch Port Cities Project, NYU

New Netherlands- NBC News Learn, Youtube
The Dutch West India Company- PBS

February 2, 1848- The Mexican/American War ends (Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo)

Map of the Republic of Texas, 1836–1845. Ch1902. Own work using: Cambridge Modern History Atlas (1912) map 71. 2009.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wpdms_republic_of_texas.svg

Mexico’s road to independence was a long and tortured one. As a colonial possession of Spain, untold wealth was extracted from it, and shameful violence, pestilence, and famine were meted out to its indigenous inhabitants and most of the Spanish and mixed-race people born on its soil following the conquest.

A coalition of dissident factions eventually managed to throw off Spanish rule in 1821. However, the revolutionaries did not share a vision for independence for most of Mexico’s citizens, who were by and large uneducated, and/or of mixed heritage. Without a popular movement supporting their initiatives, the intellectual and military leaders of the new republic frequently fell out and fought against each other. Several of the first Mexican presidents were executed for treason by political rivals not long after leaving office. General Antonio López de Santa Anna emerged as the most dominant political leader of this period. He held the office of president several times, but even outside of it, was never far from the center of power. 

As conservative Centralists gained power in the country, the first constitution was overhauled and the government took on a more authoritarian structure, leading to more strident resistance in many parts of the country. Beyond Ciudad Mexico (Mexico City) in all directions were large rural territories that had traditionally been ruled by heavy handed elites, often using forced labor, relocation, and cultural repression. As economic insecurity plagued the new government, multiple popular uprisings emerged, sapping the military’s resources. 

One of Mexico’s largest territories was the province of Coahuila and Texas. Before independence, the Spanish Empire had struggled to populate this region. In order to solve this inherited problem, the Mexican government encouraged immigrants from the United States to settle in the area, providing cheaper land and temporary exemption from Mexican taxes. The policy stipulated that these immigrants must be Roman Catholics, but this was not something that could be enforced in reality. This created an unstable situation among many of the American immigrant communities and their Mexican and mixed-race Tejano neighbors. The government kept the immigrant Texans in check politically by keeping Coahuila, where Mexicans still had greater numbers, and Texas in one province. But American immigrants still dominated Texas demographically and economically. In order to preserve Mexican control of the area, the government abolished chattel slavery in 1829, (Texas being the only Mexican territory where it was still widely practiced, due to immigrants from the American South). This was meant to discourage immigration from the United States, which a year later was banned outright.

Eventually, calls for Texas secession from the Mexican Republic reached a critical mass, resulting in the establishment of the Lone Star Republic in 1836. General Santa Anna’s hardline tactics against the rebels only steeled their resolve and bolstered support from factions within the United States who supported the revolt with money and volunteers. Texan forces eventually captured Santa Anna and forced him to sign an agreement recognizing Texan independence and vow to cease hostilities. The general returned to Mexico to an irate government that refused to recognize the agreements. 

While many Americans cheered the Texas revolution and urged their government to absorb the new republic into the United States, just as many saw it as a dangerous powderkeg that had resulted from reckless adventurism. The question was debated for years and argued against on the grounds that annexation of Texas would start a war with Mexico and introduce an unwelcome cultural element (Mexicans) into the United States. By the mid 1840s, Democrats gained more traction for expansionist policies. James K. Polk won the presidency in 1844 on a platform including annexation of Texas. Before he was even inaugurated, a bill was introduced to Congress and the state of Texas was created by 1845.

Map of Mexico in 1824 after the creation of the Federal District. Hpav7. Wikimedia Commons. 2009. Public Domain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mapa_de_Mexico_1824_2.PNG

As predicted, this sparked condemnation from the Mexican government which had never recognized Texan independence. Both nations began preparing for war. Polk sent troops into the disputed border region between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande, began mobilizing the US Navy, and sent special envoy John Slidell to Ciudad Mexico. When Mexican journalists learned that Slidell was in fact attempting to negotiate the purchase of more Mexican territory, New Mexico and California, it inflamed nationalist sentiment and many citizens threatened to revolt against President José Joaquín Herrera. The negotiations went nowhere. 

Polk’s cabinet was still divided on declaring war. Several secretaries were not willing to vote for war until attacked by Mexican forces. This occurred when General Zachary Taylor, who had crossed Mexico’s stated border, the Nueces, led his troops to the Rio Grande. Soon after refusing the Mexican commander’s order to withdraw, a skirmish broke out between troops. Taylor reported 16 casualties. Polk argued before Congress that Mexico had invaded US territory and “shed American blood on American soil.” Congress swiftly declared war on Mexico in 1846. The Mexican government was defiant, but still divided amongst itself. The army overthrew the current president and brought General Santa Anna back to power.

The war saw battles in California, New Mexico, and Texas, but the major offensive took place in Mexico’s heartland. US forces invaded and occupied Veracruz. Civilian deaths far outnumbered military casualties. US newspapers reported shocking abuses against civilians by American troops. General Winfield Scott fought several battles on the way to Ciudad Mexico, and eventually conquered its defenses. The occupation of the ancient city was not an easy task, as the citizenry continued its resistance through acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare. Most US deaths were the result of disease rather than combat.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed on February 2, 1848. The United States purchased California, New Mexico, and Texas, half of Mexico’s territory, for 18.25 million dollars. The treaty obligated the US to protect the property of the Mexicans in their new possessions by giving them US citizenship or just compensation if they decided to leave the country. In reality, only the most elite Mexicans were able to retain their wealth, while the majority of the population suffered political, cultural, and often violent repression, including frequent lynchings.

Despite this brutal history, Mexican and indigenous communities resisted erasure and fought to retain their cultures and communities throughout the American Southwest.

Sources:

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848)- The National Archives (US)

The United States-Mexican War, 1846-1848- United States Foreign Policy History and Research Guide

Mexican War Timeline- National Parks Service

“Santa Anna, the Centralized State, and the War with the United States.” The Course of Mexican History. Susan M. Deeds, Michael C. Meyer, William L. Sherman. Oxford University Press. 11th ed. 2018.

January 26, 1788- New South Wales founded in Australia

“One of the NSW Aborigines befriended by Governor Macquarie,” Artist Unknown. Mitchell Library, State Library of NSW – ML 696.

The British Empire regularly sent prisoners to its colonies around the world in order to “cleanse” itself of unwanted people. After the loss of its North American colonies in 1783, the Empire was in need of new lands to exile its convicts to. British sailors had recently discovered Australia and claimed it for the British Crown. This was not negotiated with the local aboriginal people, the Eora nation (pronounced “yura”).

On January 26, 1788, Britain’s First Fleet, made up of 11 ships led by Captain Arthur Philip, founded the first “convict settlement” in Australia at Sydney Cove. This eventually became the colony of New South Wales.

Sources:

Exile or Opportunity?- National Museum Australia

Eora-Mapping Aboriginal Sydney- New South Wales State Library

Origins of Palestine and Israel: part 1-Organized Chaos

The Ottoman Empire, based in Turkey, became the dominant power in most of the Middle East in the 1500s. They eventually extended their rule into North Africa, Eastern Europe, and south of Turkey into the ancient lands known as the Holy Land, the Levant, and many other names. Historically home to many peoples, they were then predominantly populated by Arabs. Divided into provinces under the Ottomans, they would eventually become the modern countries of Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, Palestine, and Israel. 

The Ottoman Empire was long a rival to the Christian Kingdoms of Europe, but as time went on the geopolitical situation became more complicated, as they usually do. While ostensibly enemies, delegations of the British, French, Ottoman, and other empires could be found collaborating on colonial projects. Ultimately, this status quo was toppled when the Ottoman Empire allied with Germany in World War 1. 

After the defeat of the Central Powers, the Ottoman Empire was divided among the Allies. France took control of what would become Syria and Lebanon. Britain oversaw what would become Palestine, Jordan and Iraq. Britain made 3 contradicting arrangements leading up to this outcome that set many of the region’s modern conflicts in motion.

In 1915, while WW1 was still being fought, the British government made a deal with Sharif Husayn, the Ottoman governor of Hijaz, a region in modern-day Saudi Arabia that encompassed Mecca and Medina. The deal stipulated that Husayn’s forces, mostly Arab, would revolt against the Turks in Arabia and Syria in exchange for Britain creating an independent Arab state from the Ottoman territory. Britain’s efforts on this operation were overseen by Colonel T.E. Lawrence (AKA Lawrence of Arabia).

In 1916, while the Arab revolts began, Britain signed the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement with France to divide up the former Ottoman lands between themselves as a collection of mandates with borders based on their own colonial interests, rather than those of their Arab allies. 

The third British agreement that represented a clear conflict of interest was the Balfour Declaration of 1917.

Zionism began in earnest in the 1880s as waves of Jewish immigration to a part of Jerusalem known historically as Zion. It was fueled largely by violent lynchings (pogroms) of Jewish people throughout Europe. Due to this violence many Jews became convinced of the necessity of an independent Jewish state. Hungarian-Jewish journalist Theodor Herzl wrote extensively on the topic and helped found the World Zionist Organization. British Zionists were instrumental in pressuring the authorities in the Palestinian Mandate to support their nationalist goals. The resulting Balfour Declaration read as follows:

“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

There are diverse opinions about why this particular goal was really adopted by the British government. As it sought to optimize its control over the Palestinian Mandate and balance it with its numerous other colonial interests around the world, commitments to Jewish and Arab populations waxed and waned. Unsurprisingly, violence and struggles over land and resources intensified between Palestinians and Jews. Jewish immigration increased, Arab opposition to Jews who had lived in Palestine for generations hardened, and both sides lashed out at British colonial authorities. Britain would eventually relinquish its responsibility for Palestine to the newly created United Nations in 1947.

Zionism was not created as a genocidal movement, though many Zionists have embraced genocidal tactics and aims. Arab nationalism is not fundamentally anti-Israel, though numerous Arab nationalists have used Israel as an enemy to build political bases, while doing little to protect Palestinians from Israel’s right wing. Many European colonizers worked to improve the lives of the people their governments had conquered, yet colonialism and the cynical race for wealth that fuels it could not be restrained by good intentions or isolated acts of benevolence. A violent system invariably breeds more violence. 

Source:

“The Arab-Israeli Problem.” Middle East Patterns, 6th ed. p252-264. 2014. Colbert C. Held, John Thomas Cummings. Westview Press.

Map. “Territorial evolution of Israel, from Palestinian mandate to contemporary state, with occupied territories (part A)” John V. Cotter

Vocab- The Colonial Rainbow

Colonialism is a more complicated phenomenon than it may first appear. Not only has it manifested in multiple ways, but since the 20th century, it has been increasingly challenged, dismantled, and redefined by colonized peoples and states. This has resulted in theories, practices, and movements, such as decolonialism, anti-colonialism, and post-colonialism, that can be difficult to distinguish from each other, as some users apply them more interchangeably than others.

Imperialism- The practice and/or policy of a state or people extending its authority into other territories for political or economic gain.

Colonialism- Appropriation, occupation, and/or control of one territory by another, usually defined by resource or wealth extraction.

Settler Colonialism- Distinguished from traditional colonialism wherein resources and wealth are extracted from the colonized territory to the colonizing territory (often called the metropole). 

Settler colonialism is defined by the settlers creating a new colonizing territory on the territory of the colonized, (ex. USA, Australia, South Africa).

Decolonialism/Decolonization- The process of a colonized territory or people gaining independence, often implemented problematically by colonizers themselves.

Neocolonialism- Control and/or exploitation of one territory by another through indirect means, particularly of formerly conquered or dependent territories.

Anti-colonialism- Resistance to and action against colonizing powers by the colonized. Can be formal organizations or more decentralized movements. Often referred to as decolonialism. 

Post-colonialism- Can refer to a specific historical period of any given place or region after one defined by imperialism or colonialism, or to a more globalized intellectual and political project of rethinking world affairs in the aftermath of “Western colonialism” from the 1950s through to the present (Western meaning Western European).

World Map of the 3 Worlds Model. © 1998–2006. nationsonline.org

Sources:

University of Winnipeg- Colonial Concepts

Nations Online- 4 Worlds

Nations Online 4 Worlds (concise)

The United States' Thanksgiving

Thanksgivings were originally English Puritan religious festivals that would be declared for various reasons. New England pilgrims declared them after their arrival in the Americas, the end of a brutal drought, and other major events. Oddly, it’s not certain if the feast declared by governor William Bradford to celebrate Plymouth Colony’s first successful corn harvest was among these recurring Thanksgiving celebrations. However, this feast in which the colonists invited their Native allies, the Wampanoags, led by “Chief“ Massasoit, provided the basis of the story of the United States’ “first” Thanksgiving.

George Washington made the first proclamation of a national day of Thanksgiving on November 26, 1789 to celebrate the successful revolution, particularly the enacting of the Constitution which gave the nation of disparate states a solid political foundation. Several of the following presidents made similar Thanksgiving proclamations, but the tradition faded out after James Madison. 

Sarah Josepha Hale

The writer Sarah Josepha Hale and others petitioned for a national Thanksgiving holiday repeatedly starting in 1827. The holiday these White Protestant writers had in mind was more national than religious, and it sought to focus the holiday around the “Woman’s sphere” (cooking, homemaking, crafting, etc.) Many have criticized that it was also a scheme to institutionalize Protestant Anglo-Saxons as the cultural hegemons in the face of rising Catholic immigration, Black emancipation, etc. It didn’t happen until 1863. 

During the Civil War Abraham Lincoln declared the last Thursday of November as a national day of Thanksgiving. The year began with the Emancipation Proclamation and that July the Battle of Gettysburg dealt both sides enormous losses. The proclamation was actually penned by Lincoln’s Secretary of State, William Seward.

(Partial quote)

“…Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defense have not arrested the plow, the shuttle, or the ship; the ax has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege, and the battlefield, and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom.

No human counsel hath devised, nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.

Right Hand and Life Mask of Abe Lincoln- Leonard Wells Volk, Augustus Saint-Gaudins

It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American people. I do, therefore, invite my fellow-citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next as a Day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens.

And I recommend to them that, while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners, or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty hand to heal the wounds of the nation, and to restore it, as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes, to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility, and union.” 

Right Hand and Life Mask of Abe Lincoln- Leonard Wells Volk, Augustus Saint-Gaudins

Sources:

Lincoln’s 1863 Thanksgiving Proclamation- Olivia Waxman, Time.com

Lincoln and Thanksgiving- National Park Service 

Thanksgiving 2022- The History Channel

Wills, Anne Blue. Pilgrims and Progress: How Magazines made Thanksgiving. Church History. March 2003 Vol. 72, no. 1. Pp. 138-158. Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Society of Church History. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4146807