User:Srikassha9724/sandbox

Common Assimilation Practices
Assimilation, usually used in the sociopolitical and physical context of pressure tactics, especially to manipulate, seize, and influence social security and demographics, especially with reference to non-political classes and subjugated sections of the civic clique. Thus, Assimilation, especially in lapses of American history, is an unequivocal part of political and social conduct. Racial Fusion, especially used to integrate such disputes territories after the culturally divided period of slavery and its relationship with the Military-Civil relations and its engraved precedence History of the Civil War. Lawyer and a prominent Advocate for the Indian Americans, Wendell Phillips, organised and roused Indian Americans and interested bureaucratic influencers to summon the social and political as well as economic anxieties of Racial Fusion, shrewdly extinguishing Political, social, and economic representation of Native Indian Americans in the Imperial and its refurbishing, modern polity which had the solemn pledge to govern Global geopolitics. As to what follows, Caste and intercultural differences have led to historical tribal warfare and other forms of caste and cultural conflict, leading to civil unrest within the Indian American community. Therefore, the successive American administrations have made it a broad policy consensus to unify the Indian American clique and integrate it within the American society, more so with force for its gaining political and social capital within the American electoral system and its winding importance. Consequently, the American administration has made it an issue of principality and an access of inherent capital potential to drive the Indian Americans to urban and sub-urban localities, ensuring rapid deforestation and industrialisation. Finally, the Assimilation project within the Indian American community has seen institutional and organisational support, restricting the valid questions surrounding cultural and tribal affairs of the community. The main thematic formation, racial fusion, is a century old project, used to encroach political and social nativity, especially within the indigenous communities and in the postmodern context, upon social and political minorities in the American social clique.

Author
James E. Seaver transcribed the story of Mary Jemison in 1823. The captivity narrative of the young white woman living amongst Indians became well known amongst contemporaries, selling over 100,000 copies.

Mary Jemison
Mary Jemison, the “White Woman of the Genesee”, was born in 1743. Her family lived in Pennsylvania and New York. At the Age of 15, Mary was captured by Indians during the Seven Years’ War and adopted into an Indian family. Mary continued to live amongst Indians, marrying twice, and having several children. She remained a part of the Native American community until death despite opportunities to return to white society. At 85, Mary told the story of her capture and life to James E. Seaver.

Summary
The narrative is written in a first person voice based on Mary’s account, but it is unclear the degree to which Seaver’s influence impacted the narrative’s publication. The story begins prior to Mary’s capture, describing the capture and her family’s murder. The text details her two marriages, many children and relation with her adoptive family. The narrative contrasts the female experience of white and Indian society, the impact of white society on Indian customs, and the differing values of the Native Americans. Following the appendix, Seaver writes about the Indian customs of religion, government, courtship, funerals and female work.

Submissive captive:
Mrs. Jemison’s narrative presents the captive woman as a passive and submissive victim, a characterisation typical to the female captivity narrative. Mary gives a detailed account of her biological mother’s farewell, when she commands: “If you shall have an opportunity to get away from the Indians, don’t try to escape; for if you do they will find and destroy you.”   Mary complies, and goes so far as refusing to return to white society.

Adoption:
Captive slavery was an ‘ancient institution’ amongst Native Americans. It was customary to slaughter prisoners. After the arrival of colonists, captive adoption was used to maintain the population. Mary describes the custom as a mass ritual mourning for a deceased relative. Mary is renamed ‘Dickewamis.’ The town’s leader instructs her new family to welcome and protect her so that she can be happy. Mary explains she is adopted in place of the family’s deceased relative. The relationships she builds with her adoptive family and two husbands are described as loving and happy. She describes her husbands as affectionate and respectful, and her family as protective and supportive. Mary explains that over time her adoptive family became a real family for her. The strong bond between her and her family is represented in her brother bequeathing 300 acres to Mary following his death.

Relations between settlers and Native Americans:
Captivity narratives in the 19th depicted violent confrontations between settlers and Native people, characterising the settlers as victims of predatory Native savagery. Seaver’s editorialising favours this depiction. Mary describes the ‘cruelties’ of the Native Americans towards the settlers, detailing scalping and various torturous acts. Mary justifies these acts as retaliation against white actions and in keeping with the Indian idea of justice. There is however, very little account given of the white violence enacted against the Indians, reflecting settlers' interests. Mary describes the violent impact of white introduction of alcohol through attempts to ‘civilise and christianise’ the Indians. She states that: No people can live more happily than the Indians did in times of peace, before the introduction of spirituous liquors amongst them.

Summary of Mary Rowlandson’s Narrative Story
The book titled A Narrative of the Captivity and Restoration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson (1682), written by Mary Rowlandson herself, recounts her time spent as a captive and her period of assimilation into the lifestyle, habits and practices of her captures. This book follows the journey from her family’s capture to her life during the assimilation period. The narrative follows a common theme that was set by other puritan belief captivity narratives of the time, the white captive and uncivilised capture narrative. Mary Rowlandson’s narrative provides insight on the type of life a captive would have led in the late 1600s.

Captive narrative themes explored through Mary Rowlandson
A captive narrative is the story of an individual who endured a period of captivity in their lives by an organisation other than their life. This tends to include themes pertaining to adoption; a practice carried out by assimilating the captive into a particular environment, the submissive or dominance of a captive; meaning the dynamic the captive lived through during their time of assimilation and life as a captive. The further the narrative of Mary Rowlandson is uncovered through the text the more apparent it becomes that what is occurring through the description of her physical state is closely interrelated to her personal sense of identity. Rowlandson’s Puritan beliefs underpinned a lot of her narrative and explained her acceptance and rejection of certain practices and environment she was subjected to during her time as a captive. Furthermore, Rowlandson’s narratives link to themes that were widespread during the time period of late 1600s and 1800s pertaining to captivity narratives. There were thousands of captives, specifically female captives, however, few of their stories came to light in the manner that Mary  Rowlandson’s did. This was credited to the book that was written on her story. Mary Rowlandson’s story shared common themes with other recorded captivity narratives during the same era, however, her story still remains interesting as it is one that can be read and analysed. Scholars believe that her narrative is written from memory rather than keeping a record of the events of her life as they were occurring.

Modern Scholarly Reception
Modern historiography and scholarship have differing views on Mary Rowlandson’s account. Being a first hand account some scholars believe that this could lead to bias, saviour behaviour and false sense of what life actually looked like for a captive during that period. On the other hand, the scholarly argument supports the legitimacy of the text, being a first hand account, and that even with its limitations the text provides invaluable insight on the life of a captive female during the late 1600s.

Historical and Modern Reception
The Indian American community, at large, has seen the administrative and sociopolitical discrepancies which fail to address, even in contemporary times, with such a calculated liberal discourse, formulating the historical and woes to assimilation and other politically motivated moves for social amalgamation. Hence, the Indian American community has been restricted to hindered and surrendered political asylum in which the cultural and political affairs of the community is a threat to the neoliberal and neoclassical expression of political culture. Culturally, socially, politically, and economically, history is written as a mark of expression for American society and its historical significance for not just American culture but global politics and its lasting effect on popular culture. Therefore, popular culture and the political singularities of the most part of the western world have everlasting similarities with Assimilation and other forms of forced integration and the politics of identity and its interdependent relationship with empire. In 1894, the Commissioner of India Affairs, Thomas Morgan, used the idea of cultural realism to note that “the Indians are not only becoming Americanised, but they are by this process of education gradually being absorbed, losing their identities as Indian’s”, tenaciously exploring the colonial history of the American polity, motivating the colonial emperors in Asian and African world, almost identical to the American project in the Indian American community, imposing its political and economic formulation’s as a mark of interrelated imperialism, still expressed in contemporary times.