Mary Rowlandson’s general view of the Indians that captured her are that they are uncivilized savages. She immediately gives a violent description of how the town of Lancaster was invaded by these “barbarous creatures” (9). They stormed through the town with guns blazing, burning down houses and attacking anyone in sight. A father, mother, and small child were beaten, while the other two members of the family were taken alive. The “murderous wretches” (4) shot and killed anything that moved. Another man tried to escape, but was quickly shot down. Terrified, he begged for mercy, offering the Indians money. The Indians rejected his offer, beat him, stripped him naked, then ripped out his insides. Mary witnessed this massacre unfold, all while being captured. The townspeople were either killed or captured, with their blood all over the streets and houses. Just twenty-four people, including Mary, were to be held captive, lucky to still be alive.
Before the invasion, Mary said she would rather be killed by the Indians than captured. However, when she actually encountered them, she changed her mind. She “chose rather to go along with those ravenous beasts, than that moment to end my days; and that I may declare what happened to me during that grievous captivity” (8). At that moment, Mary realized that people of her time and of future generations needed to know just how ruthless and barbaric these Indians were. Had she been killed, there would be one less account of personal experiences being captured by these perceived savages. It is important to know what life was like for people such as Mary to live in colonial times during the 17th century. The colonists had to live in constant fear of the Indians, hoping that a day so dreadful and brutal, like the one that is vividly described in Captivity and Restoration, would never occur.
A question to think about is this: How much of Rowlandson’s account is true? Could she be exaggerating her experiences in order to confirm the barriers of mutual understanding between the Europeans and Native Americans?
Whenever you read memoirs, you always have to take it with a grain of salt. It’s important to keep in mind that she wrote her ordeal long after the fact. However, you raise a good point of 17th century life in the “New World.” The settlers faced an array of difficulties, from threats of attacks from neighboring Tribes, starvation, and disease. It’s interesting to note how widely read the book was read because a tremendous amount of literature regarding the “New World” romanticized the land and people who inhabited it. While Rowlandson may take creative license in parts of her memoir, I would imagine it gives a more accurate depiction of the “New World” than Richard Hakluyt.
While I think that parts of this story could have possibly been altered to serve some purpose of confirming cultural barriers, I think most of the story is true. If Mary was truly trying to show the savagery of the Indians, she would not have mentioned how none of her captors, “offered me the least abuse of unchastity to me, in word or action” (80). By adding this comment into the story, Mary shows the reader that the Indians weren’t entirely inhumane. They may have been brutal in their butchering of Lancaster and other towns, but that was apart of the war they were fighting with Europeans. The treatment of Mary during her captivity shows a more humane side to the Indians, a side not yet known to the Europeans who fought the Indians.
The book was written a few years after her release, so I would say she should hold a more neutral point of view than the time period when she was capture. I believe most of the details in the book are true, but she might address some of the stories for her writing purposes in terms of shaping culture barriers.