ue Europeans had much patience with the Indians.
I was struck by the difference between the author gives descriptions of the natives and Europeans. When speaking of the natives, gives some details about the size of the person or members of a group, on his character, mention if the person is violent or not. But when European men mentioned, only tells us the name of the person. Perhaps the King was not interested in knowing more details about the people involved in the trip, but I think it is because compared to the natives they encountered, all Europeans have seemed to the author to be the same: according to all the Europeans had the same character, were not dangerous, and were reliable. But contrari Indians were so different that no names mentioned, only includes descriptions. I also thought that the narrative in this book was a bit "selfish": the author only talks about what he did in each situation, and has none of the other people beside their names, so we can not imagine they look like their peers.
The last thing I wanted to mention is that even though the author sometimes speaks of indigenous peoples as "people without reason and so raw, as a gross" (121), most of the time when describing their homes or customs, objectively speaking, not criticize what you are describing. This guto me.
I have a question: as the author could find a babysitter there?
0 comments:
Post a Comment