Today we continue Dr. Dan Hawk's series on Biblical Conquest and Manifest Destiny. The publisher of Dan's new book, Wipf and Stock, is offering all readers of this blog a 40% discount on Joshua in 3-D for those who order a copy by May 16th. You must order from their website and you must insert the coupon code "HAWK40."+ + + + + + +
.
.
Indigenous Women and the Invaders Who Love Them
L. Daniel Hawk
.
One of the characters that figure prominently in biblical Joshua, Manifest Destiny, and Avatar is the indigenous woman who helps the invader. In Joshua, Israelites no sooner enter the land than they encounter a Canaanite prostitute named Rahab, who protects them when the local authorities come looking for them, and then helps them make their getaway. In America’s master narrative Captain John Smith, a leader of England’s first colony at Jamestown, is saved from death by Pocahontas, who then becomes a bridge between the colony and the Powhatan Confederacy. Then, when the young United States embarks on its voyage of discovery into the land it purchased from the French, Lewis and Clark (counterparts of the two Israelite spies at Jericho?) meet Sacagawea, who guides and helps the explorers on their mission. Along similar lines Jake Sully, in the person of his avatar, meets a Na’vi woman who rescues him from viperwolves in the Pandora wilderness. She then takes him to her village and, like Rahab and Pocahontas before her, becomes the invader’s advocate before the people.
.
Why do conquest narratives include stories about indigenous women who help the invaders? That the invader is male and the indigene is female can be seen as an expression of the patriarchal societies that tell the stories; men matter and men must remain the dominant characters. Yet why is it important to the invader to include a story-line about indigenous helpers – and in the case of America, to memorialize them in movies (Pocahontas, The New World) and tokens of economic exchange (Sacagawea, on the U.S. one-dollar coin)?
.
The stories can be read as expressions of the invader’s sense of superiority and a claim that destiny was on their side; the indigenous women’s welcome implicitly recognizes the invader’s power and the inevitability of their people’s demise. Or the stories can be read as attempts to assuage the invaders’ guilt about the conquest; the women’s welcome signals that the peoples of the land really wanted them to invade.
.
Avatar, however, does something that the American narrative does not do. Neytiri ennobles the indigenous peoples and, by contrast, unmasks the violence of the invaders and their supposed cultural superiority. The real “savages” turn out to be the invaders, not the indigenes.
.
This is precisely the reversal of perspective that the biblical story of Rahab accomplishes (Josh 2:1-24). Biblical readers know who the good guys and the bad girl are in this story. But as it unfolds, Rahab expresses the qualities that Israelites admired, and she is the only person in the story to praise God. By the end of the story, readers find themselves identifying with the indigenous woman rather than “the good guys,” just as earthbound viewers find themselves identifying with Neytiri and the peoples of Pandora.
This is precisely the reversal of perspective that the biblical story of Rahab accomplishes (Josh 2:1-24). Biblical readers know who the good guys and the bad girl are in this story. But as it unfolds, Rahab expresses the qualities that Israelites admired, and she is the only person in the story to praise God. By the end of the story, readers find themselves identifying with the indigenous woman rather than “the good guys,” just as earthbound viewers find themselves identifying with Neytiri and the peoples of Pandora.
.
The biblical account uses the device of reversal to humanize the indigenous peoples of Canaan, dismantle perceptions of superiority, and destabilize the rhetoric that viewed them as deserving of annihilation. The attitudes evidently remained prevalent when the story was written down, for Rahab’s descendents remained “to this day” at the margins of Israelite society (Josh 6:23, 25).
.
What then of the American story of “how the west was won?” How might the biblical story prompt today’s Christians to see that story differently, recognize the violent and exclusivist elements that configure it, and ponder how the story shapes perspectives and practices to this very day?
.
+ + + + + + +
.
Previous link in the series:
.
30 comments:
I have a difficult time reading the Rahab story the way you present it. What she says and does seems much more in keeping with what you call the American narrative. She welcomes the spies. She protects them. She confesses to them that everyone in Jericho is fearful and knows they are doomed. She makes a special deal with the Israelites for herself.
Maybe I'm misreading or just too dense to get it.
Thanks John. I think you've caught my point. Rahab functions in the Israelite story just as Sacagawea and Pocahontas do in the American story. They help the invaders. Conquerors like this kind of story.
On the other hand, Joshua (and Avatar) turns this conventional story on its head. Look at how the spies are portrayed in Josh 2 in contrast to Rahab. They are passive, reactive, and quick to make a forbidden pact if it spares their lives. Rahab on the other had is proactive, tricky, and praises Israel's God. She comes out looking more like the model Israelite than the spies - which has a way of shaking the "cursed Canaanite" stereotype.
The Church does the same thing to its "outsiders". The position of power, whether intellectural, informational, scientific, etc. is a means of controlling other individuals in their perceptions and choices.
Social order is seen as more important than "upsetting the cart" by being honest about thier own biased opinion as the ones in power and calling the shots, or framing the discussion or asking the questions, as a group.
My intent in saying all of this is to underline the fact that bias is necessary to maintain any "frame" in which we view the world. Those who want to re-construct everyone's "world" into theirs, seek to control what is heard, known, or understood. This is propaganda of the worst kind, those that bias others, knowing what they are doing. And it ends in dictatorial regimes that leave no other way to "see" or understand.
Not a lot to disagree with in the post. I think most British Methodists would take the same view of The British Empire.
The stories can be read as expressions of the invader’s sense of superiority and a claim that destiny was on their side.
I have an intuition that makes me want to put a gloss on this. I suspect that the sense of superiority of our ancestors was so absolute that there was no chippiness at all about the sense of superiority. I doubt our ancestors would have given much of a second thought to the plight of the indigenous people just as I think that much of our foreign policy fails to give a thought to the indigenous people (Need a place to dump your subsidized rice, how about destroying the Ghanaian rice industry in the name of charity?)
The Church does the same thing to its "outsiders". The position of power, whether intellectural, informational, scientific, etc. is a means of controlling other individuals in their perceptions and choices.
I know this is off topic yet again (sorry Allen) but I'd be fascinated as to how I can "control" your perceptions and choices, Angie?
Are you open to the possibility that, as a Christian, I might be able to see a good deal of your point of view and still disagree with it? Please tell me if I'm wrong but you seem to hold very dear to your heart the idea that Christians must have some sort of nefarious intention against you?
Pam,
No apologies necessary. I have no problem with a side discussion or two as long as the main topic is not overshadowed.
Dan, you write in reference to the biblical story (specifically conquest) how we ponder "the story shapes perspectives and practices to this very day?"
I am thinking here in particular of worship. In what ways do you see Christian worship practices as being shaped by this narrative?
Dan, thank you for insights on stories. Your work is thought provoking and enlightening. I see lots of connections with preaching and teaching.
Angie, I am not sure we read the same post. It is a long way from examining stories and how they function and such a damning critique of the church. It is very difficult to engage you in the conversation and subject matter when you continually insult Christians with your judgments.
I had sought to correlate Church ritual in purity through the sacraments, that bring about a separated, or sectarian view of life, with the "Manifest Destiny".
Such sectarian views about politics and life, in general, is what sets up the scenarios we see today, where people cannot engage one another without appeal to "higher authority", than their own understanding or personal convictions. And this is tragic in free societies where engagement is necessary for democracy to flourish!
There are several perspectives that one can take in this story. And each one has a validity. But, the "politically correct" view is ethnocentrism that subscribes a particular bias against the "nation state" status.
Bruce,
Just curious... what connections would you make with preaching and teaching in light of Dan's reflections?
Allan, the obvious connection that came to mind is the reversal stories of Luke. Luke employs them to change the status quo of religious thinking, or cultural thinking. Luke suprises us with a Samaritan as the good guy while showing the priest and levite in a poor light. Suprise and reversal is a way to engage the heart and mind in new thinking about one's relationship with God. I remember a story about God asking the angels to handle the Red Sea crossing. God was saddened by the death of the Egyptians and would not let the angels work anymore. Instead of glorifying the death of ones enemies perhaps God mourns them. So should we. The Cotton Patch version of the Bible comes to mind. The good samaritan story in this version is a scandle to many for lifting up the goodness of a black man as opposed to the white preacher and song leader. This is a means of confronting our loving held bias and sin.
Angie, why do you seperate the appeal to a higher power, and personal convictions? Are they not the same thing? Why is a spiritual or religious conviction different than any other? I think this is a false sepreation.
Bruce,
I separate them because I believe that any man bases his reasons, well, on his reason. So, whether one is a believer or unbeliever there is or should be a reason.
That is, unless one believes in an irrationality that undermines reason, because of some supernaturally revealed information that puts faith above reason.
@PamDG: The reading strategy I refer to has resonances in many standard historical-critical commentaries of the 20th Century that celebrate Rahab's story as an announcement of Canaanite defeat.
Your intuition is spot on. In the US, the superiority of European civilization was assumed throughout the 18th-19th and into the 20th Centuries. Its corrolary was the belief that primitive cultures (such as Native American societies) were destined to pass from the arena of history. So either civilize them (to save them) or quaranteen them on resource-poor reservations.
The American version of the story, as I know it, has no reversal element in it, reflecting I think a continued anxiety to keep whites separate from Natives. In the popular version, Pocahontas goes to England - and dies.
@Allan: could you say more about what's behind your question on this story shaping worship practices?
@I appreciate you extending reversal to the canon. Reversal is a stock device of the biblical prophets. Joshua, btw, is classed with the Former Prophets in the Jewish canon. It's part of Israel's history rendered from a prophetic perspective.
Dan,
I suppose I am getting at the kind of worship practices that take place on Memorial Sundays. etc... in which Manifest Destiny seems to be the narrative that is played out in worship. How, in your opinion, should such things be handled given the fact that there are people in our congregations who have given their commitments to such endeavors.
I remember our discussions and I am quite appraciative of them.
I don't think that worhipping or not worshipping in the understanding of the "Manifest Destiny" can be affirmed or dis-affirmed, UNLESS one has a politicalized agenda via Church...this is what I HATE because dissolving distinctions also dissolves our liberties! Ethnocentrism is the greatest Politically Correct Sin these days..it is JUST as "sinful" to prescribe how one should or shouldn't worship in a free society!
Good post. And good point on Rahab I have never heard expressed that way. She seems to have accepted God's judgment whereas the rest of the Canaanites evidently did not. Somehow she had hope that Israel's god was a god of mercy.
Good education for me, and I look forward to reading more.
Allan, I understand the concerns of Memorial Day. It is too easy to confuse genuine pastoral care issues of grief and honoring loved ones with patriotic triumph. God can easily be replaced with country. When participating in Memorial Day services it is helpful to draw out the distinctions between God and Country, faith and patriotism by simply naming the possible mistake and clarifying the difference between God and Country. We can honor those we love and we can grieve without resorting to country as god.
Angie, my question has not been addressed. Why would you think that faith convictions are not based upon reason? By the way, reason is a long way from being a pure source or foundation for convictions. Reasonable people of good will have differences in opinion.
Allan and Bruce, the equation of God and country entered civic discourse in the Revolutionary Period. The "Founding Fathers" recognized the power of religious affection and intentionally appropriated it to unite the fractious colonies and, afterward, the new nation. Christian motifs and symbols were taken up and redirected toward the humanistic ideals of the Enlightenment (e.g. liberation, progress). This facilitated a "love of country" that approximated religious devotion. It remains for the church to negotiate the intersection of civil religion and Christian piety.
Bruce,
I am not arguing for absolutism because there will be different values that inform a person's view. This is where the disciplines in the university, as well as the Departments in the State Department will address different arean of concern in the world. The world is diverse and complex and that is what makes it interesting.
Reason is useful for those that choose to believe in God and base it on rationality, but theology is not a hard science but "speculative idealized philosophy".
Theology is about a subject that cannot be investigated, this is why sociologist, antrhopologists and psychologists are more equipped to address the problems in the real world.
Faith cannot be proved, unless one prescribes what will define faith, which has its own problems.
As for God and country, the two are and are not separated, because each one of us will approach that issue differently because of our nation's belief in religious freedom. This is what Church and State is all about.
A Christian should be a good citizen. But, a good citizen does not have to be a Christian. It is only when Christianity and faith issues become intangled with politics that emotions run high, as God is useful to "empower" a certain stance on a certain political issue.
The problem as I understand it is: Political ideology drives our understanding of many things, and that includes theology. If one has the understanding that God has sanctioned a certain view about any policy issue, then one will be more prone to be reactionary, and radical in their pursuit of that issue. This is the danger of mixing politics and religion.
But, it is abusive to suggest that being a good citizen or loving one's country is "idolatry" unless one is driven consciously or unconsciously for a certain stance towar globalism in opposition to the nationstate)!
Dan,
What you say is true, as the Founders sought to use religious language to appeal to religious people, as they were not unified as to "faith issues". This is where I disagree with your suggestion.
Individual conscience must be allowed to drive religious convictions, otherwise we have sanctioned the Church AS as STATE! This is NOT liberty of conscience, but tyranny.
The Founders were devoted to their country, yes, indeed, as they sought to serve their country even though it might mean death! But, the REASON they served their country was for LIBERTY, not for a GOVERNMENT per se! Liberty of the individulat to pursue his own happiness!!! And the Church MUST allow that liberty as well!
Dan, thanks for your response.
Angie: I struggle with many of your comments because they seem to equate the church with the state. You say as much in a later post. Reason can and must inform our faith but it cannot dictate it. If our faith is only what we can reasonably deduce, it's not faith, only opinion.
The church has a long history of manipulation, corruption and control. That is tragic and sinful. But it doesn't change the tenet of the faithful, that Jesus went in obedience to the cross as a sacrifice for the sinfulness of all men and women; that God accepted that obedience and by His grace chooses to not see our sinfulness but Jesus' obedience; and, through the resurrection of Jesus, God gives us the hope of eternal life in His presence, a gift beyond human measure or understanding. That's the question of faith.
There must be an openness to dialog in the church as well as an openness to new ideas such as those Dan discusses. The focus of our faith, however, is not dependent on any individual's reason, it simply is.
Our reason is just as biased as anything else. There are plenty of examples of scientists who, regardless of their intent, shape their research and results because of bias. These bias are revealed through peer review just as bias in faith is revealed through enlightened accountable discussion. Your "rockin' the boat" is valuable, so long as you too are open to listening and contemplating what others have to say.
Thanks for your input. It has made for a lively discussion.
Chuck,
Your diagnosis is a belief in the supernatural. There are those who do not believe that we can know the supernatural. Therefore, these are agnostics, or atheists.
Reason is not absolute, but one must begin with the belief in God but that says nothing about God. And if one chooses not to do so, then, that is their prerogative.
Some seek to prove these "faith issues" by experiences. But, experiences are responses of stimuli of the brain. One's mind is what interprets what has happened.
The ancient world did not have the scientific understanding that we have today, thus their cosmology and culture was skewed by that view of the world. So, most today would not believe that Jesus was some "gnostic Mystic", but a human being.
He became "God" through many layers of oral and written "testimony" of the evanglists, eye witnesses, and Church Fathers. But, one must also understand that the supernatural was also conceived by understanding natural things with supernatural lens. They believed that the flood covered the whole earth because that was all they knew. They had no way to observe other parts of the world or even know that they existed.
So, text, and tradition is only useful if one chooses to believe in a religious sense. It is only useful to those who don't believe for investigating people of faith.
Reason and experience is all human really have that is based in reality in the here and now.
The political realm has politicized faith, so that people of faith can be pragmatically "useful". This obscures liberty and religious freedom, because it doesn't really allow liberty, only a pretense of liberty to further government's own ends.
Our Founders did not intend to "use" people of faith for government's ends, as the people WERE THE ENDS! That is the difference. Pragmatism without embracing the ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is what we have today, but in the Founder's Day it was pragmatic with idealistic hope of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for each citizen!
People of faith must hold to their rendition of faith as personal,(even when that means "nominal faith") otherwise, people of faith will unintentionally do away with what was to be liberty of conscience. And this is what the Founders died for, liberty from persecution, tyranny, oppression, etc.
The Founders believed that religion had an important function in society, particularly in its capacity to inculcate morality and civic responsibility. Almost all, however, were humanists and, with a few exceptions, Deists. They, like the leaders of subsequent nationalist movements, believed that all humans, religious or irreligious, aspired to transcendence. They took up the Puritan matrix and redirected its elements from God to the state. Love of God became love of country. Striving toward salvation became striving toward liberty. Divine predestination became America's unique destiny as the vanguard of a new world.
Enlightenment principles were thus baptised with Christian imagery. Notice, for example, the joining of national ideals and God in hymns like "America" (aka "My Country 'Tis of Thee.")
Later nationalist movements (e.g. France, Russia) dispensed with religion altogether and redirected transcendent impulses without mediation toward the State.
A good overview of the process (but with only scant reference to the US) is A.D. Smith, *Chosen Peoples: Sacred Sources of National Identity.*
Dan,
It was probably a lot easier in the Founder's time to "baptize Enlightenment principles with Christian imagery".
Today, there are various scientific theories about reality. Who is to say which one is correct to create a "better world", or "soceity"? Natural law was the Founding "principle", but today, we have understood that there are a lot more aspects in understanding humans, their realities, and their cultures. These are understood within the different disciplines in the university. How does one "baptize diverse principles" in Christian imagery?
A good example is the difference of perspective in "free markets", based on the Protestant principle, and "social engineering" based on Marxist ideology. We find ourselves in a culture war because of vast differences concerning ideology which drives or frames policy decisions.
Is America an exceptional nation, or is America one among many nations? Both positions have aspects of reality.
How then, will AMericans, politicians, policy makers and public servants understand how things should "work", and what "life" should be? Should there be multicultural attitudes toward governance, or should there be a spreading of democracy abroad? How is one or the other to be practically implemented? These are difficult, complex and pressing questions that determine priorities, and create our future world. With nuclear threats, it is imperative to be connected to reality in regards to past history and possibility.
Angie, if faith, religion, or theology are not equipped to deal with what you call "the real world" why do you bother with this blog? Your insulting and arrogant approach to all things religious leaves you less than reasonable, biased and unable, (unwilling), to perceive anything with different points of view. A good book that addresses your concern with reason is The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative, by Hans Frei. If truth is reduced to scientific fact, much of human life, history and present existence is null and void. Can the hope, dreams, emotions, the experience of falling in love, the birth of a child, all of these very human experiences be reduced to scientific fact? I am a psychology major from my college days and the discipline raises as many questions as it seeks to answer and is constantly in conflict with itself.
Greetings!
I find something very interesting about what Pam has said earlier. The sense of "superiority" that exists in humans (both those of the United States Colonies and the Israelites in Joshua) makes the comparison to Avatar very different. Although Jake in Avatar initially has a superior attitude towards, and quite a bit of awe for, the Na'vi, he is still quite open to learning from Natari, much like the French were open to learning from the Native Americans before the end of the French and Indian War. Is there a sense in Joshua for such openness to learning from the native culture?
@ Bruce and Annonymous,
One must value learning from others. And then, one must answer who they respect to "learn under" and answer the question why they respect such persons. And then, asnwer the question of what type of learning is important to them. Everyone does not deserve respect in every area. Leadership understands that they have the responsibility to influence others.
Annonymous brings up learning from the "naturalists", which are the disciplines found at the university, as Jack learned from those who presuppositions was 'nature".
On the other hand, multiculturalism undermines reasonable governance, because it allows religious ideology to drive public policy, and that has real problems in the real world. But, it is just as much a problem to disregard, or inhibit the religious aspect of "men". This happens when political ideology drives the public domain.
So, we must allow diverse opinions to be expressed, whether we agree with them or not.
(I am familiar and have read portions of Hans Frei's book)
@Anonymous. Great question. Joshua keeps many perspectives in tension - a facet of its complex compositional history. Your question, though, draws me to Joshua 23, in which the answer is a resounding "no!" In this speech, Joshua is working hard to keep a distance and thus to keep group boundaries intact. When read in light of Joshua 2 (Rahab), the question is thus raised, "What are the boundaries?" The opposing perspectives take us to the fundamental issue of what constitutes national identity.
Post a Comment