A little but oh well!!

Thomas Harriot and John Smith one could say expand the truth in some sort of degree. These gentlemen are known explorers of the new world, but both have different perceptions of it in their publications. Now I would not call these men liars, but some of the things that these men say do not make much sense. I understand that the purpose of these writings were to bring new settlers to the new world. But did the direction that these men took the right way to do it?


Let’s take a look at Thomas Harriots publication A Brief and True Report of the New Found Land of Virginia. In his writings, Harriot described the natives as simple, cowardly, uneducated and ill prepared in any combat situation. For instance harriot writes ‘’ Most things they saw with us- [such] as mathematical instruments; compasses; the virtue of the load-stone in drawing iron: a perspective glass whereby were shown many strange sights: burning glasses: wild fire works; guns: hooks; writing and reading; spring clocks that seem to go of themselves; and many other things we had- were so strange unto them, and so far exceeded their capacities to understand.’’ (Harriot 52) Now from what little I know about the Native American culture and history. For what little advances in technology they had at the time, the Native Americans did quite well for themselves. I am sure that most of us have heard about the lost colony of Roanoke Virginia. Let’s keep in mind that little tragedy might have been in fact the natives doing. Harriot portrays to the audience that the new world is an almost perfect paradise, for which the English should settle upon. But in our history books we found out that the new world was not like how Harriot portrayed it to be. I think Harriots purpose was to exploit the new world, just to make it sound better than it really was.

John Smith was a similar way of stretching the truth in his publication of’’ The General History of Virginia, New England, and the Summer Isles. ‘’ But his perception of the new world was far different from what Thomas Harriot described it as. Smith said that the natives were savages and relentless towards the settlers. Unlike the cowardly and gentle natives that Harriot described. But John Smith stretched the truth in a different way. I felt like Smith made it seem like he was more of the hero in his publication. For example, when he says he fights off around 200 savages using another persons body as a shield. Now that seems a little too farfetched to me. We can assume that John Smith wrote this story to educate future settlers, but he seems to put some entertainment values into his narrative to. My question to John is how did he think that readers hundreds of years from his time would respond to his writings? I am sure he probably fooled his generation, but these days we look at history to debunk his writing.

Both of these men have been known to stretch the truth, but I would not call them both liars. I understand their purpose for these writings, and value what they are worth to them. Exaggerating the truth a little does not hurt anyone, unless its intention is to do harm. I feel like these men did no harm in their works, and have great character in their stories.