Western Characters | Page 5

points only to the ideal of
each class.
And this view of the subject excludes all those discussions, which have
so long puzzled philosophers, about the origin of the race--our business
is with the question What is he? rather than with the inquiry, Whence
did he come? The shortest argument, however--and, if the assumption

be admitted, the most conclusive--is that, which assumes the literal
truth of the Mosaic account of the creation of man; for from this it
directly follows, that the aboriginal races are descendants of Asiatic
emigrants; and the minor questions, as to the route they
followed--whether across the Pacific, or by Behring's strait--are merely
subjects of curious speculation, or still more curious research. And this
hypothesis is quite consistent with the evidence drawn from Indian
languages, customs, and physical developments. Even the arguments
against the theory, drawn from differences in these particulars among
the tribes, lose their force, when we come to consider that the same, if
not wider differences, are found among other races, indisputably of a
single stock. These things may be satisfactorily accounted for, by the
same circumstances in the one case, as in the other--by political and
local situation, by climate, and unequal progress. Thus, the Indian
languages, says Prescott, in his "Conquest of Mexico," "present the
strange anomaly of differing as widely in etymology, as they agree in
organization;" but a key to the solution of the problem, is found in the
latter part of the same sentence: "and, on the other hand," he
continues,[2] "while they bear some slight affinity to the languages of
the Old World, in the former particular, they have no resemblance to
them whatever, in the latter." This is as much as if he had said, that the
incidents to the lives of American Indians, are totally different to those
of the nations of the Old World: and these incidents are precisely the
circumstances, which are likely to affect organization, more than
etymology. And the difficulty growing out of their differences among
themselves, in the latter, is surmounted by the fact, that there is a
sufficient general resemblance among them all, to found a comparison
with "the languages of the Old World." I believe, a parallel course of
argument would clear away all other objections to the theory.[3]
But, as has been said, the scope of our work includes none of these
discussions; and we shall, therefore, pass to the Indian character,
abstracted from all antecedents. That this has been, and is, much
misunderstood, is the first thought which occurs to one who has an
opportunity personally to observe the savage. Nor is it justly a matter of
surprise. The native of this continent has been the subject of curious
and unsatisfactory speculation, since the discovery of the country by

Columbus: by the very want of those things, which constitute the
attraction of other nations, he became at once, and has continued, the
object of a mysterious interest. The absence of dates and facts, to mark
the course of his migration, remits us to conjecture, or the scarcely
more reliable resource of tradition--the want of history has made him a
character of romance. The mere name of Indian gives the impression of
a shadowy image, looming, dim but gigantic, through a darkness which
nothing else can penetrate. This mystery not only interests, but also
disarms, the mind; and we are apt to see, in the character, around which
it hovers, only those qualities which give depth to the attraction. The
creations of poetry and romance are usually extremes; and they are,
perhaps, necessarily so, when the nature of the subject furnishes no
standard, by which to temper the conception.
"The efforts of a poet's imagination are, more or less, under the control
of his opinions:" but opinions of men are founded upon their history;
and there is, properly, no historical Indian character. The consequence
has been, that poets and novelists have constructed their savage
personages according to a hypothetical standard, of either the virtues or
vices, belonging, potentially, to the savage state. The same rule, applied
to portraiture of civilized men, would at once be declared false and
pernicious; and the only reason why it is not equally so, in its
application to the Indian, is, because the separation between him and us
is so broad, that our conceptions of his character can exert little or no
influence upon our intercourse with mankind.
Sympathy for what are called the Indian's misfortunes, has, also,
induced the class of writers, from whom, almost exclusively, our
notions of his character are derived, to represent him in his most genial
phases, and even to palliate his most ferocious acts, by reference to the
injustice and oppression, of which he has been the victim. If we were to
receive the authority of these writers,