Raibmon - CHAPTER TWO Naturalizing Power Land and Sexual...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–10. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 4
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 6
Background image of page 7

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 8
Background image of page 9

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 10
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: CHAPTER TWO Naturalizing Power: Land and Sexual: Violence along William Byrd’s Dividing Line: Paige Raibmon; The border surrounds us without clarity. There is no certain way to see, to cross into the good revolution from the diseased heart of power. —Kiireii Connefly Colonialism is about asserting dominance over far—flung lands; colonial ism is about asserting dominance over far—flung peoples. These stat; ments are commonplaces, though the connection between them is no " William Byrd’s History of the Dividing Line Betwixt Virginia and North Ca ‘ olirio and its companion Secret History reveal this interrelationship work in the colonial South. Hailed as “the most literarily and historicall valuable of southern colonial memoirs" and a “double masterpiece, these chronicles of the 1728 survey are unusually rich sources for explo' ing the workings of links between human beings and their enviro= rnents.1 Byrd planted sex and scandal liberally throughout the 5363' History, intended only for the eyes and ears of close friends. He weed these lurid details out of his public History, replacing them with accoun of the region’s flora and fauna. Through his own “creative censorship}? Byrd replaced sex with nature.2 I The relationship between these aspects of the two Histories is cru', to Byrd‘s works, yet it has long been overlooked. Although scholars ha paid homage to Byrd’s invaluable record of natural history, they ha-_-. given his descriptions of sexual encounters literary rather than histori treatment, viewing them as superior examples of eighteenth—can satirical wit. Attempts, such as Kathleen Brown’s, to treat Byrd’s sex as a historical rather than a literary event have prompted calls to re our attention to his narrative multiplicity and strategies of literary 'l' plotrnent.3 This literary perspective has diverted attention away from _7 disturbing issues raised when we admit the sexual encounters as his ' cal fact, for in his Secret History, Byrd chronicled a series of repeated 5 3' 20 PAIGE RAIBMON 21 assaults on local women. The victims of these incidents varied from a (mark Angel” who "struggled just enough to make her Admirer more ea— ger,” to a "Tallow—faced Wench . . . disabled from making any resistance the Lameness of her Hand,” to a farmer 's “tal straight Daughter of a sandy Complexion," to a kitchen maid who "wou’d certainly have been ravish’t, if her timely consent had not prevented the Vio- knee.“ Byrd addressed his account of these events to contemporaries of his mm class. The Secret History was "designed for reading aloud around a eolonial fireplace, where congenial gentlemen and ladies accustomed to may engaged the talk of a western adventure by people they knew.”5 111858. were stories colonial elites told themselves about themselves and such belong within a broader context of colonial politics, power, and mime. The image of Byrd and his peers reading the Secret History at a or as part of a fireside chat confronts us with an elite culture where acts were part of young men’s training. For the elite women among thefireside audience, hearing about such acts must have reinforced both diet-sense of vulnerability as women and their sense of racial and class distance from the female victims of male "ribaldry."6 __ Byrd’s accounts provide a privileged glimpse into the culture and ' logy of an elite colonial class, a class for whom the manipulation of nature, or more broadly of people and the environment, was not much interchangeable as intertwined. His assumptions about class gender, and the environment combined to mandate joint manipula: of land and society. In his natural history, Byrd did more than item— flora' and fauna; he naturalized the power structures of colonial sldlxunahon. He framed the Histories within a dual enclosure of environ— and human potential, evaluating the land and its inhabitants in of their susceptibility to colonial improvement and increased pro- Throughout the Histories, Indians and settlers, as much as BPSdflgd forests, were features of the landscape along the dividing m‘gtreeigl'o escribed Women in particular as akin to nature, not unlike soil (Jr-fie; animals, even descrlbing them in similar terms. The assaults ahermmm“Ere closely assoc1ated With Byrd’s other colonial goals, not figured necessfigrtl ghem. The Socral refprm and social control that he of Changesein ttilanlsfordmations of landscape. At the same time, his Limes, Byrd candale necess1tated human transformations. In the “sad to Great 1 lsplayed ideological tools that men of his e a dialectic of Justification and necessity for their New ' 7 ' 1d domination of land and people. B_ t flgrdfis iOlWIl roots were deeply sunk in a landscape of class, race, and i :0 :1 gage. Born 1nto the Virginia planter class in 1674, he was sent ngland 1n the wake of Bacon’s Rebellion. He subsequently 22 REPRESENTATION PAIGE RAIBMON 23 alternated his home between England and Virginia until, in his 9 ’ fifties, he settled in the colonies for good in 1726, residing there until death in 1744. In 1728, he accepted an appointment as chief commisSio for Virginia on the survey expedition organized to settle a long-stem border dispute between his home colony and North Carolina.8 The S _ vey party consisted of representatives from both sides of the border _ totaled between forty and fifty men, organized into a strict hierarchy, . boundary commissioners, three from Virginia including Byrd and f from North Carolina, perched at the apex of the pyramid. All were In whose pedigree, education, political involvement, and landholdings bued them with the status and authority of gentlemen. Below the c missioners were the four surveyors. Their status rested upon th technical knowledge of surveying, their familiarity with the landsca' and, for some, their large landholdings. These formally trained survey commanded the "woodsmen" who performed technical roles mar and measuring the land and handling the instruments. All three rested upon the "base" of the pyramid: the black and white servants w : toiled at the most physical and menial work. The hierarchy of the su- tearn replicated southern society at large, in which status, privilege, landholdings were closely linked. At Byrd’s insistence, the assemb party was large enough to ensure that this social hierarchy survived trials of travel over the unfamiliar territory from the north shore of C rituck Inlet through the Great Dismal Swamp to the foothills of the palachian mountains, two hundred and forty—one arduous miles wes the coast. In his survey team, Byrd assembled a microcosm of the and political order he sought to extend to the unsocialized and, he convinced, uncivilized people along the dividing line.9 I the fact that much of the most fertile land would have been kept 7 of deciduous stands by Native American agricultural and hunting fees, Which included frequent burnings. This tendency was espe- {me along the coastal plain. ' I The larger Indian (and later settler) population in eastern North Car- ensured that burnings were more frequent there than elsewhere, the sandy soils and extensive peat bogs of the coastal plain meant or : gs were more extensive and harder to control.13 Although many American agricultural fields and villages had been abandoned by _ _r,_ time because of disease and warfare, such sites would not yet have r- . d to large deciduous forests. They would instead have been char— d by the fire subclimax of longleaf pines. Byrd himself recognized . djan Towns . . . are remarkable for a fruitful Situation," yet he still d—the hardwood forests as superior land.14 The inconsistencies of his ization are apparent again in his declaration that "the Land . . . the Marks of Poverty, being for the most Part Sandy and full of This kind of Ground, tho’ unfit for Ordinary Tillage, will, however, Cotton and Potatoes in Plenty.”15 Clearly, Byrd measured “good” more than mere fruitfulness.16 - Byrd assessed land, he also implicitly assessed the inhabitants it way of life. Indians situated their towns in fertile locales, he ed, because “being by Nature not very Industrious, they choose a" Situation as will Subsist them with the least Labour.”17 He pro- d similar judgments upon the white and black inhabitants of these pinewcovered regions. Byrd claimed that land suited for growing es and cotton was land suited for those who were "easily con- ; and like the Wild Irish, find more Pleasure in Laziness than Lux- V In this assessment, Byrd ignored the labor-intensive nature of "M farming. And in his judgment of the potato, an archetypal New roduct, he referenced widespread colonial associations between and Irish savagery. the hands of “uncivilized” inhabitants, laziness was the lamen- l3’3’131'0duct of natural bounty. "Surely there is no place in the Where the Inhabitants live with less Labour than in N Carolina," m Yrd. "It approaches nearer to the Description of Lubberland other, by the great felicity of the Climate, the easiness of rais— .V-1510ns, and the Slothfulness of the People.”19 According to him, I. .Was literally in the air. Simply living in the environs of the Plsmal Swamp produced in settlers "Agues . . . which Corrupt all 1965 of their Bodies, give them a cadaverous complexion, and be- a 3237, creeping Habit, which they never get rid of.”20 Swamp I lefls subsisted on free—range cattle and hogs, a diet that Byrd be- - them rldden with yaws and “hoggish in their Temper" to the Sometimes the links between Byrd’s assessments of land and people buried beneath the surface of his natural history entries. To find the C nections, we have to dig a little. For Byrd, good land was either alo riverbank or wooded with large, deciduous trees. He wrote, for exam that the lands between Fountain Creek and the Roanoke River and tween Caskade/Casquade Creek and the Dan River were especially tile.10 In several other instances, he used "the largeness of the TI particularly walnut, poplar, hickory, and white oak, as "certain Proo a Fruitful Soil.”11 These two standards were sometimes at odds with another within Byrd’s text as well as with what we now know about: I” natural and human history of the area surveyed. Although his first 5 dard resonates with current notions of land fertility, the second does Byrd's preference for large deciduous stands was consonant with the temporary English exaltation of the solid "heart of oak," nationals ' of English colonial power, liberty, and identity.12 Yet it was inconSIS- 24 REPRESENTATION point that many “seem to Grunt rather than Speak in their ordinary con. versation."21 Like many aspects of his natural history, these observa-_ tions were gendered. He placed the blame for ill health on the men whose lazy dispositions, he believed, led them to locate their families in unhealthy locales.22 Although certain illnesses were linked to environ. mental conditions of the southern lowlands, Byrd’s fear of disease was less reflective of actual biological threats than of his condemnation of land—use practices that he deemed inadequately rigorous.23 Just as Spanish colonists could believe the savagery of the South American rain forest was contagious, so English colonists feared the contagion of southern swamps and pocosins.24 Byrd's fear that environmentally induced laziness would infect set- tlers was compounded by his worry that the temperate climate and boun- tiful environment actually attracted indolent individuals: “To Speak the Truth, tis a thorough Aversion to Labor that makes People file off to N Carolina, where Plenty and a Warm Sun confirm them in their Disposi- tion to Laziness for their whole Lives.”25 Thus, for Byrd, land could be poor because it had too much rather than too little fertility; environments could be problematic because of the human behavior they facilitated. But why should Byrd have been so preoccupied with the work ethic of backcountry settlers? In fact, laziness was not the issue in and of itself: The real problem lay in the social relations of power signaled by the p03.- sibility of a “lazy” existence. Byrd worried that New World abundance might pose a serious obstacle to elite attempts to harness others’ labor-é Like most Virginia planters, he realized these people who had “filed off to North Carolina” were primarily former Virginia indentured servants} overworked and underrewarded, who had headed south when faced with a lack of available land and an officious gentry class at home. As in_ other colonial settings, the labor shortage resulted not from a scarcity of laborers, but from an abundance of those who would scarcely labor; the failure to work “appropriately” was a sociopolitical and cultural 15511.6 rather than a demographic one.26 Byrd had good reason to be preoccupied with labor issues. He needed people to work his own vast landholdings, which included twenty thousand acres of the most fertile borderlands surveyed by the di‘” viding—line commissioners}? Dubbing this tract the “Land of Eden," Byrd boasted that it was “as fertile as the Lands were said to be about Babylon? which yielded, if Herodotus tells us right, an Increase of no less than 2 0? 300 for one.”28 He later claimed in his 1737 promotional tract, "Ne _ found Eden,” that Indian corn "yields the planter in good soil seven eight hundred fold or still more."29 But planters needed laborers in ord__ to reap this spectacular yield. Byrd, who self—identified as Adam in . newfound Eden, feared that the bountiful New World environme11 PAIGE RAIBMON 25 might produce a new social world. Would poor white and enslaved African-American men still submit to working his Eden if they believed they could become Adams of their own gardens?30 Byrd‘s Eden required not only laborers but also laborers who pro» duced for commercial surplus rather than personal subsistence. “Valuable” landfor Byrd was land that supported trade and commerce. As he wrote, flqe border region contained land that "would be a Valuable Tract of Land in- any Country but North Carolina, where, for want of Navigation and Comerce, the best estate affords little more than a coarse Subsistence.”31 Hjs perspective was representative of contemporary mercantilist values that saw commercial people as the final products of “the natural advance— ment of human L-iociety."32 If England and Virginia were to display this su— Perior state of civilization, workers had to be persuaded to produce goods to fuel the engine of colonial commerce.33 Poor inunigrant settlers, whom elite colonialists such as Byrd judged to be inferior, incapable of self—disci- pline, and barely civilized, were in particular need of persuasion.34 Byrd transformed these class—specific economic values into universal meral ones by invoking the biblical flood. He explained that “there is no cliniate that produces every thing, since the Deluge Wrencht the Poles of the world out of their Place, nor is it fit it shou’d be so, because it is the Mutual Supply one country receives from another, which creates a mu- tual Traffic and Intercourse amongst men.” Trade and commerce were not only natural but also necessary aspects of the postdiluvial world. “And in 'I'mth,” he continued, "were it not for the correspondence, in order to make up for each other’s Wants, the Wars betwixt Bordering Nations, like those of the Indians and other barbarous People, wou’d be perpetual and Hteconcilable.”35 Byrd thus naturalized the production of commercial conflating it with the Christian duty to prevent a Hobbesian war ofall against all. Fertile land and independent folk whose self-sufficiency hmdered the execution of this duty would have to be civilized, or co— erced, into working. Biblical precedent was a useful way for Byrd to promote his own commercial ventures, such as his plan to drain the Great Dismal gimp-3: Though it could only be done at great expense to the “Publick of asure, he claimed that the drainage project would improve the health :Prgfittglers and.”at the same time render so great a Tract of Swamp very :w-ate b18,_be51des the advantage of making a Channel to transport by . eth Earnage goodsfrom Albemarle Sound into Nanismond and Eliza- :moml vers, in Virginia.”37 Casting mdustriousness and trade as inherent I goods allowed Byrd to argue that the general population would efit from planting the colonial garden adjacent to a major transporta- hm‘l l'Oute under his control. Byrd's personal concerns and interests mirrored those of the planter 26 REPRESENTATION class at large. From the beginning, colonial settlements in Virginia and North Carolina failed to reproduce some of the most important structures of English ruling class authority. The refusal of backcountry residents t0 marry formally through the church was but one example.38 Dis. persed settlement patterns undermined effective centralized control, a problem the English upper class had confronted in Ireland.39 Still more problematic, as one historian has shown, was the fact that the poor set. tlers who were excluded from the benefits of elite English civility “did not accept the arguments of English social and cultural superiority that were expounded by their betters.”4U The experiences of the survey team reproduced in microcosm the difficulties that this lack of deference caused for elite colonists in general. In these, as in other, colonial borderlands, elite knowledge was hope- lessly inadequate. Unable to survive in the backwoods without the assis- tance of knowledgeable locals, the survey party was dependent upon. local people for everything from directions to sustenance.“ Colonial elites who succeeded in establishing their authority relied on the appro- priation rather than the replacement of indigenous knowledge to a far greater degree than men such as William Byrd would have been willing to admit. Much of the information he included in the History about me— dicinal herbs and plants, the uses of “Dogwood Bark” and r‘Seneca Rat- tle—Snake-Root," for example, probably originated with indigenous and. other local sources including African slaves.42 But many local residents were notably reluctant to share their hard—won knowledge of the terrain and environment with Byrd and his cohorts. When pressed for directions, residents sometimes fled and sometimes pleaded an unlikely degree of- ignorance of local geography.43 Both strategies could be risky, as Byrd’s party threatened the uncooperative with imprisonment.44 Local inhabi- tants were aware that Byrd could use the knowledge they shared against them, just as he was aware that their lack of cooperation was symptd‘ matic of larger issues of social control. Rejection of elite superiority and resistance to elite domination were closely linked to the style of agriculture that took root on the colonial frontier. Dispersed settlement patterns that facilitated the evasion of elite: control went hand in hand with the practices of extensive agriculture and free-range grazing. To elites, landscapes marked by such practices looked more like “barbaric” Native American or even Irish patterns than the EIE‘ glish tradition of intensive agriculture and enclosed pastures.45 Byrd knew how to read the human relations imprinted upon phySi‘: cal landscapes. Swidden agriculture and free—ranging livestock bespoke? the presence of independent (and, from his perspective, uncooperative}: backcountry inhabitants, settlers who produced for personal subsistence rather than commercial surplus. Byrd’s New World Eden, by contrast! PAIGE RAIBMON 27 wouid require neatly planted orchards, crops in orderly monoculture fields, and enclosed livestock. Land would be brought under control through "Ordinary Tillage?“J Forests could (and indeed should) be Cleared to obtain pastures or fields or wood products because after all Eden itself had only two trees.47 Domesticated animals—cattle, sheep, and goats—were an integral component of his pastoral vision. Just as or— dered, agricultural fields represented "civilized" land, so sheep, goats, and cattle represented "civilized" animals.48 Of course, this re-created Eden was to be planted not in virgin soil, but on top of an age—old Native American landscape, whose inhabitants presented still other obstacles to colonial dOmination. Eden would have to be very carefully constructed and managed.49 Changes in the land were integral to the process of civilizing and controlling its inhabitants. Byrd’s vision required reorienting the rela- tionship not only between people and land but also between men and women. He wanted to transform the Virginia and Carolina wilderness into a garden comparable to the one where Adam delved and Eve span. Inthis endeavor, women had less distance to travel than men. Byrd noted that local women “Spin, weave and knit, all with their own Hands, while their Husbands, depending on the Bounty of the Climate, are Sloathfull in every thing but getting of Children."50 Throughout the Histories, he largely exempted women from the environmentally induced infection of lassitude, claiming that “the Distemper of Laziness seizes the Men of- tener much than the Wornen.”51 The fact that women worked hard was less a sign, for Byrd, of their own virtue than it was of the savagery and laziness of the men who forced them into this unnatural role. Judging men by how they treated women, Byrd wrote that “the Men for their Parts, just like the Indians, impose all the work upon the poor W0men.”52 Male lassitude and female drudgery inverted his view of the natural order and were therefore signs of savagery. Although men were savages if they didn't work enough, women were savages if they worked too much or if they worked at “male’r tasks such as agriculture. Byrd in— herited the dual images of the "squaw drudge" paired with that of the _1ndolentbrave" from his seventeenth—century Virginian predecessors.53 Countless colonizers before him used this stereotype to attack Native fmerican rights, and many others would continue to draw upon it as a Prune index of savagism” through the turn of the twentieth century.54 In FY1113 Eden, landscape and humanscape would be mutually transforma— the; civilized inhabitants would be producers and products of the civi- thd environment. The survey team was the vanguard of this mission to "civilize" the savage along the dividing line. In this respect too, it was a microcosm of milder colonial experience. The labor force Byrd sought to recruit through 28 REPRESENTATION his rhetoric of human and environmental "civilization" was primarily male, and the lessons he derived from the Garden of Eden were purely patriarchal. The implications for women were chilling. Local women felt the impact of this civilizing mission through sexual violence; they exPe. rienced the dividing line as a frontier of sexual fear. Members of the survey party assaulted women at least nine times during the expedition. Byrd took obvious pleasure both in observing and recounting the sexual assaults on white, African—American, and Native American women. His Secret History often made the dividing-line exPe~ dition seem like one great sexual romp, more reminiscent of soldiers pfl. laging a captured city by assaulting its women and girls than anything as. high-minded and officially sanctioned as a survey mission.55 On March 9, for example, members of Byrd’s party occupied a man’s house without permission and "endulg’d themselves so far as to ly in the House. But it seems they broke the Rules of Hospitality,” he continued, "by several gross Freedoms they offer‘d to take with our Landlord’s Sister.“6 Two days later Byrd and another member of the party were sur- prised by the "Charms" of a "Dark Angel” who “struggled just enough to make her Admirer more eager.” Byrd described the encounter: “Her Complexion was a deep Copper, so that her fine Shape & regular Features made her appear like a Statue en Bronze done by a masterly hand. Shoe brush [Byrd's pseudonym for John Lovick, commissioner for North Carr olina] was smitten at first Glance, and examined all her neat Proportions with a critical Exactness.”57 This woman was a member of a mulatto fam- ily, whose “Master” avoided the survey party, perhaps fearing they would doubt his free status, as indeed they did. In the History, Byrd ex- pressed a measure of sympathy for the family, implying that their neigh- bors took economic advantage of their tenuous claim to freedom, “well knowing their Condition makes it necessary for them to Submit to any Terms.”58 But the sexual assault in the corresponding entry of the Secret: History reveals that Byrd's party likewise took advantage of vulnerable. backcountry residents. Being forced to submit to "any Terms” also meant- enduring sexual violence at the hands of men like Byrd, against whom 10-.' cal people had no hope of recourse.59 The following day Byrd’s party took advantage of another woman who was both injured and intoxicated. In the Gaiety of their Hearts, they invited a Tallow-faced Wench that. had sprain’d her Wrist to drink with them, and when they had raise’d her in good Humour, they examined all her hidden Charer and play’d a great many gay Pranks. When Firebrand [Byrd’s pseIl’-- donym for Richard Fitz—William, commissioner for Virginia] who had the most Curiosity, was ranging over her sweet Person, he pick'f‘ PAIGE RAIBMON 29 off several Scabs as big as Nipples, the Consequence of eating too much Pork. The poor Damsel was disabled from making any resist— ance by the Lameness of her Hand.60 On March 15, a farmer’s daughter became the next victim. Byrd de— scribed her in the Secret History in terms much like those used for the nat- ural environment. She was “tal” and "straight" rather like the pine trees that took root in the region’s sandy soils, of which her “Yielding Sandy Complexion” was reminiscent.61 Byrd’s writings imply that it was more than the girl’s complexion that was “yielding.” He claimed it was her own curiosity that led to her encounter with Puzzlecause (William Little, commissi0ner for North Carolina), who took her inside one of the tents where the Parson (the Reverend Peter Fontaine) also awaited “to keep him honest, or peradventure, to partake of his diversion if he shou’d be otherwise.”62 Byrd alluded to this incident in the History by stating sim— ply that at this locale, the men in his party "were furnisht with every thing the Place afforded.”63 Read in conjunction with the corresponding portion of the Secret History, this comment suggests Byrd’s inclination to include women among a region’s natural resources. He counted women and nature alike among the things "the Place afforded.” On March 25, Firebrand, dissatisfied with the supper he received, “endeavour’d to mend his Entertainment by making hot Love to honest Ruth, who wou’d by no means be charm’d either with his Perswasion, or his Person. While the Master was employ'd in making Love to one Sister, the man made his Passion known to the other, Only he was more bois— terous, ti: employ’d force, when he cou’d not succeed by fair means."64 Master and servant alike attempted to exercise sex privileges along the dividing line. And on April 1, Byrd seemed to interpret the smile of his "Landlord’s" daughter as indication that she would welcome his kisses: "I discharg’d a long Score with my Landlord, 8: a Short one with his Daughter Rachel for some Smiles that were to be paid for in Kisses/’65 __ Bytd described an assault on a kitchen maid in both histories. In the History, he recounted how brandy caused some men to be "too loving; In— s(mulch that a Damsel, who assisted in the Kitchen, had certainly Suffer’d What the Nuns call Martyrdom, had she not capitulated a little too Seen?“ He elaborated in the Secret History: "A Damsel who came to as- sist in the Kitchen wou’d certainly have been ravish’t, if her timely con— sent had not prevented the Violence.”67 Feeling similarly threatened, the Landlady of the house hid in her bedroom, armed with a chamberpot of ‘Female Ammunition.”68 Byrd claimed not to know the assailant’s iden- Etx though "Firebrand & his Servant were the most suspected, having ‘ 83:1 engag’d in those kind of Assaults once before.”59 011 Still another occasion, Byrd described how Meanwell (William 30 REPRESENTATION Dandridge, conunissioner for Virginia) and Captain Stith "pretended to go a hunting, but their Game was 2 fresh colour’d Wenches, which were not hard to hunt down.”0 This rhetoric of women as game again re- flected Byrd’s conflation of the natural and female reSOurces along the di. viding line. The survey party treated Native American women similarly. De. scribing a visit to a village of Nottoway Indians, Byrd reported that the survey team "visited most of the Princesses at their own Appartments, but the Smoke was so great there, the Fire being made in the middle of the Cabbins, that we were not able to see their Charms.”71 Again linkiiig women with the natural world, he explained that he "could discern by some of our Gentlemen’s Linnen, discolour’d by the Soil of the Indian La- dys, that they had been convincing themselves in the point of their hav- ing no furr.”72 Byrd’s words suggest that he and the survey team viewed these women as akin to animals and that they treated them accordingly. The “Volley of small Arms” fired at Byrd’s party when they "march’t out of the Town” suggests that Nottoway communities knew the difference between sexual assault and their own traditions of “trading girls.”73 In several instances, Byrd claimed to have stepped in at the last mo- ment to save the women from rape, a contention that seems incredible when set in the context of his own sexual history."74 He was a man accus- tomed to having power over the lower classes. Repeatedly rejected by women of his own class, Byrd lorded sexual power over women of lesser status long before the dividing-line expedition. His London diaries in- clude explicit descriptions of nonconsensual sexual encounters. Describ~ ing a morning visit to a friend, he recalled that he "committed uncleanness with the maid because the mistress was not at home," then “when the mis— tress came I rogered her. "75 According to one of Byrd’s admiring editors, he “was not above picking up a stray wench in St. James’s Park and con- summating the affair in the weeds nearby.”76 From the days of his youth: Byrd had struggled to control his sexual urges.77 As he aged, his sexual en- counters were characterized more frequently than not by gross imbalances of class position and power, and toward the last years of his life, his sex-- ual partners regularly included female slaves.78 The expedition’s sexual violence sheds disturbing light on Byrd’s ex- emption of women along the dividing line from the immoral indolence of men. The inverted sexual division of labor seems part of a twisted ra- tionale for a different form of "civilizing" action for women than for men- Byrd’s acceptance of the “squaw-drudge” stereotype provided ideologi— cal justification for assaults on “savage” women supposedly in need 0f European rescue from Native American men. A vocal advocate of inter“ marriage between white men and Native American women, he argLIEd that “a sprightly Lover is the most prevailing Missionary that can be seflt PAIGE RAIBMON 31 amongst these or any other lnfidels.”79 Byrd may have been aware that these views echoed those previously espoused by other prominent south— ' colonists, including his brother-in-law, Robert Beverley II, and John Lawson; he did not know how well they anticipated the assimilation poli— cies Proposed for Alaskan Natives by Catherine the Great and for Native Antericans by Thomas Jefferson.80 Regardless, Byrd was blunt in linking sex with colonial policy. Per— haps recalling the legendary story of Iohn Rolfe and Pocahontas, he wrote that "the poor Indians would have had less reason to Complain that the English took away their Land, if they had received it by way of Portion with their Daughters.”81 Although not official policy, intermar— riage between white traders and Indian women was commonplace on the eighteenth—century southern frontier. The specter of sexual violence in the Secret History complicates our picture of these relationships, prob- lematizing the notion of consent between colonizer and colonized.82 It suggests the need to locate intermarriage along a continuum of sexual in— teraction that includes sexual assaults and rape. And it suggests the need to bind our understanding of the appropriation of land to the appropri- ation of women. Sexual relations served Byrd as a justification not only for land ap— propriation but also as further means to coerce labor from the male in- habitants along the dividing line. The threat of sexual violence demonstrated to fathers, sons, brothers, and husbands alike the value of voluntarily conforming to the prescriptive vision for land and society that men like Byrd propounded. Men feared that the cost to their families would be more than economic if they chose to forgo the surplus goods Byrd urged them to produce. The sexual threat ensured a human cost for envirorimental inadequacy. Here again, Byrd’s frontier paralleled other colonial settings. Colonizers employed gendered coercion to obtain labor in the pelagic sea otter trade in Russian Alaska and in the rubber indus— try in Colombia, where traders took women and children hostage until the men returned with pelts or rubberfi‘3 One anthropologist has identi— fied a "culture of terror" in Colombia, where indigenous men as well as Women Were subjected to horrific sexual and other physical violence in the name of procuring rubber?)4 Although the records do not suggest a 'Clflture of terror” of the same degree in Virginia and North Carolina, the Sex11111 violence detailed in Byrd’s Secret History begs a reassessment of CPMOnalities across colonial frontiers. And it again complicates our no- tion of consent: the consent not only of women but of men who gave their labor under conditions tainted by the perverse coercion of sexual fear.55 Through acts of sexual violence elite men reaffirmed their power not only over women but also over entire classes and races of people they deemEd beneath them as well as over vast tracts of land they deemed un- 32 REPRESENTATION finished countryfi“3 Acts of sexual violence in colonial settings are not just personal but are deeply political as well.57 Violence and abuse against women were inseparable from Byrd’s colonial project of subjugating land and people. Here again, Byrd was not unique; this constellation of power, land, class, and sex extended far beyond the dividing line. Authors of other colonial texts may well have exercised the same sort of self—censor- ship that Byrd did when he wrote his public History hoping to promote- land sales and settlements5 Although accounts of sexual violence were accepted and understood around elite fireplaces, Byrd could not have been certain of their reception in other circles, particularly among the" families he hoped to attract to domesticate his vast holdings of back- country land. Historically, colonial ruling elites have attempted to legitimate their power with precariously balanced justifications of the imperial enterprise and its suspect alignment with their personal wealth and status. Byrd’s- paradoxical concern that natural overabundance would encourage human underproduction is but one example of such a justification. The object of his discourse was not to render a plentiful environment less so but rather to ensure that it would yield its plenty to an elite class of which he was, of.“ course, a member. This undertaking involved altering the human and nate ural landscapes in ideological and material ways. In his natural history, Byrd erected specific environmental values as fortifications around Eden; he established particular configurations of land and power as en- trance requirements. His invocations of Eden and the flood naturalized his: self-interested definitions of the proper relationships between people and nature and between men and women. Biblical metaphors cast political. questions of power in moral terms. The laziness that seeped from the swamps and pocosins into the men of the colonies justified both the phys- ical alteration of the land itself and attempts to instill among settlers the work ethic required to effect such alterations. The drudgery inflicted upon women by uncivilized men appeared as further proof of these people’é. savagery, even as it served to sanction the abuse of women. Byrd buttressed the exertion of elite, colonial power by a multi- faceted appeal to nature. He presented his role as Adam in a restored- Eden as part of the natural order of things while at the same time con- demning those “contented with Nature as they find Her.”39 Human na' ture was intertwined with the natural environment in a way the.l facilitated their mutual redirection. But ultimately there was very little that was "natural" about either the landscape or humanscape that Byrd desired. Colonial elites did not rule naturally. They achieved and main‘- tained dominance through the manufacture of ideological coercion and physical violence. PAIGE RAIBMON 33 Byrd may well have been, as scholars have argued, a representative Virginia gentlemen of his daygfllThe convergence of environmental and sodal policies apparent in his Histories was certainly characterlstic of the colonial enterprise. This convergence masked, justified, and fac1htated the brutality of colonialism in general and of Byrd’s survey expedition in - articular. The survey team was indeed a microcosm of colonial relations. life must move beyond viewing Byrd as a "sophisticated, satirical, man of letters”91 if we are to confront the unsettling implications of this violence for race, class, and gender relations in the colonial South, relations that characterized the public and political realms as much as the private and 13913301131 ones. Byrd’s Histories offer powerful illustrations of how atti- tudes toward land and attitudes toward people can be mutually sustain- In his colonial Eden, the environment was much more than a neutral assemblage of rock, water, and woods. It was the terrain in which he and men like him rooted their cultural identities, values, and human interac— tions. This fact is no more a relic of the colonial past than the acts of sex— ual violence that he described. Natural science and social science remain as inextricable today as when Byrd first traversed the dividing line. NOTES I would like to thank David Cecelski, Kirsten Fischer, Nancy Hewitt, Vir- ginia Scharff, Daniel Levinson Wilk, Gwenn Miller, Peter Wood, and Susan Xmell for their valuable encouragement and assistance with this chapter. 1. Richard Beale Davis, Intellectual Life in the Colonial South, 158571763 (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1978), 901, 1438. Byrd used his detailed personal diaries as the basis for his History of the Dividing Line betwixt Virginia and North Carolina, Run in the Year of Our Lord, 1728, which was firstpublished in 1841 by the pioneering southern agronomist Edmund Ruffin. The Secret History of the Line; Which Byrd actually composed prior to the History, remained unpublished until 1929. Hereafter, I refer separately to the History and Secret History where ap« Propriate. When making statements applicable to both, I refer simply to the His- All citations come from the 1929 joint publication of the two histories. See Byrd, Histories of the Dividing Lines Betwixt Virginia and North Carolina, ed. K. Boyd (Raleigh: North Carolina Historical Commission, 1929). 2. Kenneth A. Lockridge, The Diary and Life of William Byrd H of Virginia, 16744744 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1987), 136. ,. 3- Douglas Anderson, "Plotting William Byrd,” William and Mary Quarterly 56‘. no. 4 (1999): 701—22. 4. Byrd, Histories, 57, 59, 67, 149. 5- Davis, Intellectual Life, 1371; Charles Reagan Wilson and William Ferris, 'gds'r Encyclopedia of Southern Culture (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina 1989). 679. 34 REPRESENTATION 6. Here is powerful evidence indeed for Kathleen M. Brown’s assertion that “in [Byrd’s] life and in the lives of an unknown number of planters, power and sex were mutually reinforcing, especially when played out on the bodies of fig. male subordinates" (Good Wives, Nasty Wenches, and Anxious Patriarchs [Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996], 334). In her discussion of Ameri. can literature, Dawn Landner links the frontier‘s promise of sexual adventure for men with assumptions about white women’s unfitness for frontier life: "Contrary to its surface appearance, America promises not a land of men without women, .1 Paradise without Eve, but a wilderness where the white man will have the best sex of his life. The assertion that wilderness life is too difficult for women, and the subsequent insistence upon the exclusion of white women, often assumes, un. spoken, the retention of a non-white female sexual object (not peer or partner) and a sexuality which is without responsibility” (“Eve among the Indians," in The Authority of Experience: Essays in Feminist Criticism, ed. Arlyn Diamond and Lee R, Edwards [Amherst University of Massachusetts Press, 1977], 201). 7. Byrd was typical in his use of categories of civilization and improvement to understand and control the “New World.” On the seventeenth- and early- eighteenth-century ideology and literature of improvement, see once Chaplin, An Anxious Pursuit: Agricultural innovation and Modernity in the Lower South, 173071815 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1993), 26ft. 8. On William Byrd’s life, see Lockridge, Diary,- Kenneth A. Lockridge, On the Sources of Patriarchal Rage: The Commonplace Books of William Byrd and Thomas-ejj‘erson and the Gendering of Power in the Eighteenth Century (New York: New York University Press, 1992),- and Pierre Marambaud, William Byrd of Westover, 1674—1744 (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1971). 9. For the above characterization of the survey team I have drawn on David Smith, “William Byrd Surveys America,” Early American Literature 11 (1977): 300—303. On Byrd’s emphasis on order among the survey team, see Smith, "William Byrd," 303; and Brown, Good Wives, 280. On Byrd’s concern with estab— lishing a civilized order along the length of the dividing line, see A. James Wohlpart, "The Creation of the Ordered State: William Byrd’s {Re)Visi0n in the. History of the Dividing Line,” Southern Literary [carnal 25, no. 1 (1992): 3—18. 10. Byrd, Histories, 150, 210, 211. 11. [bid., 154, 166, 188. 12. Simon Schama, Landscape and Memory (New York: Alfred A. Knopf:- 1996), 163—64. 13. Harry Roy Merrens, Colonial North Carolina in the Eighteenth Century: A" Study in Historical Geography (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina PreSSL 1964), 192. 14. Byrd, Histories, 208. 15. lbid., 102. 16. Here as along other colonial frontiers, the evaluation of land could not 0C" ' cur without an external benchmark. As a scholar of colonial Peru points out: "’good’ and ’bad’ environments are defined as such in terms of a given produCfiVe' system” (Karen Spalding, Huarochiri: An Andean Society under Inca and Spanish Rule" [Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 1984], 298). Thus, for example, the AW- des represented a "problem climate” for Spanish conquerors and colonialists be PAIGE RAIBMON 35 .cause it was a landscape that presented “great difficulties to the technology de- veloped by Europeans for the cultivation of their temperate, relatively flat agri- cultural lands” (p. 13). Since any productive system is tied to those who produce wimin it, Spalding’s insight can be extended to the conclusion that judgments of land use were simultaneously judgments of land users. 17, Byrd, Histories, 208. 18. Ibid., 102. 19. Ibid., 92, 304. 20. Ibid., 74. 21. Ibid., 55, 152. 22. Ibid., 74. 23. Hookworm, a parasite that can cause lethargy, dullness, and physical malformation, was likely prevalent among the population of the colonial South and. may account for some of Byrd's observations. The impact of this "germ of laziness” should not be overstated, however, lest it become, as it did for some early-twentieth—century public health reformers, a "scientific" validation for long-established prejudices about the South. See Albert E. Cowdrey, This Land, This South: An Environmental History (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1996), 133—34. 24. Michael Taussig, Shamanism, Colonialism, and the Wild Man: A Study in Terror and Healing (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 76. 25. Byrd, Histories, 92. 26. Taussig, Shamanism, 54. .27. Byrd’s landholdings began with an inheritance of some 14,000 acres in 1705. By 1744, when he died, he was the owner of 179,440 acres of land and had been negotiating for the Great Dismal Swamp. See William Byrd, The Prose Works of William Byrd of Westover: Narratives of a Colonial Virginian, ed. Louis B. Wright (Cam- bridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1966), 28. Byrd was not alone in his acqui- Sition of especially fine specimens of surveyed land. David Smith notes that "there hardly a commissioner who did not return from the survey in possession of the Eights to title of thousands of acres of choice real estate” (“William Byrd,” 303). 28. Byrd, Histories, 268—270. 29. William Byrd, William Byrd’s Natural History of Virginia or The Newly Dis— Eatered Eden, ed. Richard Croom and William ]. Mulloy (Richmond, Va.: Dietz BESS, 1940), 20; see also Byrd, Histories, 92. Here, Byrd seized upon the most out- Standing Symbol of overabundance in the colonial imagination. In 1588, Thomas Harlot had claimed that with less than twenty—four hours' labor, twenty—five square yards of land would yield enough corn for twelve months’ sustenance; see A Bn'efand True Report of the New Found Land of Virginia (New York: History Book Club. 1951), c3, 30- Kenneth Lockridge, On the Sources, 93, notes Byrd’s self—identification 'Imth Adam in the History. See also, for example, Byrd, Histories, 178. 31- Byrd. Histories, 52. The contrast between the accessible Chesapeake and barrier of the Outer Banks was well known to colonial Virginians and North l“ll-Pins alike. In Byrd’s view, the natural impediments to extensive seaborne "lead . i e in North Carolina meant that North Carolinians needed to work harder to .measme up‘ 36 32. 33. 34. Settlements in Ireland and Virginia, 1550—1650," in The Westward Enterprise: Ens glish Activities in Ireland, the Atlantic, and America, 1480—1650, ed. K. R. Andrews; N. P. Canny and P. E. H. Hair (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1979), 19_ ' 35. 36. posal to Drain the Swamp, ed. Earl G. Swen, Heartman’s Historical Series, (Metuchen, N.].: C. F. Heartrnan, 1922). George Washington would later inve; some of his wealth and his slaves in the digging of the Dismal Swamp canal. K 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. pendency of southern colonial culture and lifestyle on the unacknowledged age propriation of expertise and skill from African slaves, see Peter Wood, “’It was.' Negro Taught Them,’ A New Look at African Labor in Early South Carolina? journal of Asian and African Studies 9, nos. 3—4 (July—October 1974): 160—89. 43. 4,4. 45. tural Sources: 1580—1860” (master’s thesis, Duke University, 1992), 17, 18, 23. 46. 47. 48. "had a most agreeable Effect upon the Eye, and wanted nothing but Cattle grow ing in the Meadow, and Sheep and Goats feeding on the Hill, to make it a C0 pleat Rural Landscape" (Histories, 296). See also Keith Thomas, Man and Natural World: A History of the Modern Sensibility (New York: Pantheon BOO. 1;: 1983), 20. 49. REPRESENTATION Chaplin, Anxious Pursuit, 33. Ibid., 27. Nicholas P. Canny, “The Permissive Frontier: Social Control in English Byrd, Histories, 270. Ibid., xxvi. See William Byrd, Description of the Dismal Swamp and a Pig; :3 p g Byrd, Histories, 84436. Anderson, "Plotting William Byrd,” 717; Byrd, History, 74. Canny, "The Permissive Frontier,” 40. Ibid., 34. Byrd, Histories, 37, 50, 160, 220, 286, 312. Ibid., 145, 148, 152, 154, 155, 156, 160, 162, 163, 178, 242, 287. On the Byrd, Histories, 37, 50. Ibid., 50. _ Susan Yarnell, "Half—Ploughed Fields: English Bias in Southern Agricul. Byrd, Histories, 102. Schema, Landscape and Memory, 226. About a pleasing View across a valley, for example, Byrd wrote that Byrd’s own plantation, of course, became a carefully constructed ‘ Well-managed English Eden, at least as he described it, though slavery cert' . .- made it a "post—Fall" environment. 50. 51. 52. 53. nohistory 29, no. 4 (1982): 281. This trope was apparent in Australia too. See Pa cia Grimshaw, "Maori Agriculturalists and Aboriginal Hunter-Gatherers: Worn and Colonial Displacement in Nineteenth—Century Aotearoa / New Zealand ‘ Southeastern Australia," in Nation, Empire, Colony: Historicizing Gender and . ed. Ruth Roach Pierson and Nupur Chaudhuri (Indianapolis: Indiana I Press, 1998), 32—38. 54. Byrd, Histories, 66. Ibid., 66, 92, 116, 304. Ibid., 92. __ ‘ David D. Smits, “The ‘Squaw Drudge’: A Prime Index of Savagisrn,” E C.‘ Smits, "The ’Squaw Drudge,” 281—306. PAIGE RAIBMON 37 55, "William Byrd, " 305—7, Smith points out that the spring and fall portions dfflie survey expedition had markedly different characters. The accounts of sex- violence all occurred during the spring portion, which Smith argues had ygbmething of the nature of a light-hearted group pilgrimage.” The fall months of {fie-survey which traversed more westerly and less inhabited lands, had a more ‘é‘dusively homosocial spirit akin to that of a great male hunting party. 56. Byrd, Histories, 53. 57. Ibid., 57. 58. Ibid., 56. 59. Douglas Anderson reads this passage from the History somewhat differ- rmflg identifying in it what he terms Byrd’s “complex neutrality" (“Plotting Byrd,” 718). Byrd seems rather more complicit than neutral in my read- of the passage, however, as he himself was among those who dictated the to vulnerable escapees. 60. Byrd, Histories, 59. 61. Ibid., 67. 62. Ibid. .63. Ibid., 66. 64. Ibid., 91. 65. Ibid., 105. 66. Ibid., 146. 6'7. Ibid., 149. 68. Ibid. 69. Ibid. 3'0. Ibid., 151. 71. Ibid., 123. 72. Ibid. 73. Ibid. 74 Even if we were to accept Byrd’s dubious claim that actual tape was usu- averted during the survey expedition, it is clear that it was not by much. In a1 instances, he based his contention that rape did not occur on his assertion the Women ultimately consented. And if Byrd actually did intervene to pre- intercourse, he did so only after he had voyeuristically watched events pro- to the brink against the woman’s will. 75. William Byrd, The London Diary (1717—1721) and Other Writings, ed. Louis Wright and Marion Tinling (New York: Oxford University Press, 1958), 180. 76. Byrd, Prose Works, 14. 77. Lockridge, Diary, 49. 78. Brown, Good Wives, 334, 355. For a graphic quantitative accounting of '3 Sexual encounters as recorded in his diaries, see Lawrence Stone, Family, a? and Marriage in England, 1500—1800 (London: Wiedenfield and Nicolson, I 563-68. Byrd's sexual history must also be placed in the context of an elite ture 1“ marriage was a prlmary mechamsm for acqumng and mam- a"? 0? m ,5 5f y status. Courtship was thus a period in which young elite women .OYEd an increased degree of social power; Brown, Good Wives, 249, 253455. fen the sting of this superiority when women rejected him as a suitor, and resentment of such power inspired misogyny in him and others. Lockridge, 38 REPRESENTATION On the Sources, 86, accepts Byrd’s claims of sexual temperance and restraint, b9, lieving that his expressions of misogyny were limited to his commonplace book, Donald J. Siebert Jr., "William Byrd’s Histories of the Dividing Line: The Fashionm-g; of a Hero," American Literature 47 (1975): 533—51, however, is less convinced by; Byrd’s self-descriptions as regular, ordered, and sexually restrained. The Seem}: History and Byrd’s London diary certainly establish that his backlash was not ited to literary jibes. When elite women frustrated Byrd’s attempts to fashion him self as a Virginian gentleman, separate from but equal to his English counterparts l he and men of his class could and did take recourse against the nonwhitell nonelite women to whom the power of courtship did not accrue. ' 79. Byrd, Histories 2, 4, 118, 120. 80. On Robert Beverly II and John Lawson, see, for example, Davis, lntelle, tual Life, 134, 163; Brown, Good Wives, 243; and Gary B. Nash, "The Image of th' Indian in the Southern Colonial Mind,” William and Mary Quarterly (3d ser.) '.‘ (1972): 227. On intermarriage between Russian fur traders and Native women, ' thesis, Duke University, 1997), 42. For Jefferson's ideas on assimilation and in A marriage, see Bernard J. Sheehan, Seeds of Extinction: Jefi‘ersonian Philanthropy a the American Indian (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1973), 17 , and Brian W. Dippie, The Vanishing American: White Attitudes and US. Indian Pa z icy (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1982), 5, 260. Support for the idea of' = termarriage between whites and Native Americans was prominent enough a; almost pass into Virginia law in the late eighteenth century. In 1784, Patti" ' Henry, supported by John Marshall, authored a bill proposing that incentives cash, livestock, and clothing be offered to white men and women alike who ried Native Americans. The bill also provided for mixed-race children to recei an education at the government’s expense. It passed two readings but failed third. See James Hugo Johnston, Race Relations in Virginia and Miscegenation int 5- South (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1970), 269—70. 81. Byrd, Histories, 4. For an analysis of racial attitudes in Byrd’s Histo ' see Dana D. Nelson, The Word in Black and White: Reading "Race" in American l3 erature, 1638m1867 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 29—37. Nelson gues that Byrd’s call for intermarriage, far from being a liberal manifestation racial tolerance, was, in fact, profoundly conservative. 82. Kathleen Brown, Good Wives, 356, similarly sees sexual relationships "'93 tween masters and enslaved women as a case in which the gross imbalance power renders the notion of “consent” extremely problematic, if not comple". ‘=' untenable. __ 83. For this phenomenon in Colombia, see Taussig, Shamanism, 25. For 35' Russian Alaskan example, see Miller, “Handsome but Tattooed,” 32, 37. 84. Taussig, Shamanism, 30, 41, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 100, 121. 7 85. The implications of domination in Byrd’s narrative have not go“e r. tirer unnoticed by scholars. Historian Kenneth Lockridge recognizes that 3' 1 History of the Dividing Line is not only an epic of running the line but is also It epic of William Byrd’s natural mastery over those around him,” and he notes '7 "in the Secret History, much of the mastery is the shared mastery of men 0 "" PAIGE RAIBMON 39 women” (Diary, 132). Ultimately, however, Lockridge treats the Secret History’s dob-session With sex" as a flaw in the text’s literary merit rather than as a key to minderstandmg gender and power in colonial society; ibid., 134. In this analysis, Egckfidge is aligned with Byrd’s many other editors and commentators who have heated his Secret History as a literary work of art, a "witty social satire” that is .afich in racy humor" (Davis, intellectual Life, 1372; Wilson and Ferris, Encyclopedia i-gfi'éSouthern Culture, 679). For a more recent literary take on Byrd that emphasizes ifs-role in the production of a distinctly southern regional literature, see Susan "Industry and Idleness in Colonial Virginia: A New Approach to Byrd 11,” Journal of American Studies 28, no. 2 (1994): 169—90. When histo- _ have addressed the acts of sexual violence, they have most often treated dismissiver as an “eye for feminine charms” or as “amorous activities" (Byrd, Histories, xiv; Byrd, Prose Works, 15). More than twenty years ago, David recognized that it was no longer enough to agree with such assured com- Placent judgments of Byrd. Smith, “William Byrd," 308—9, identified some of the figmplex questions regarding masculinity, sexuality, power, and colonialism by the Histories, though he left them unanswered. 7 86. For an extended look at the gendered dynamic of the discourses of dis- goyery, conquest, and settlement in an earlier period, see Louis Montrose’s analy- §fsfiof Sir Walter Raleigh, "The Work of Gender and Sexuality in the Elizabethan Elecourse of Sexuality,” in Discourses of Sexuality: From Aristotle to AIDS, ed. C. Stanton (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992), 138—84. :87. See Antonia Castaneda, "Sexual Violence in the Politics and Policies of Eonquest: Amerindian Women and the Spanish Conquest of Alta California,” in Wlding'with Our Hands: New Directions in Chicana Studies, ed. Adela de la Torre Beatriz M. Pesquera (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 25; and _. - Brownmiller, Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape (New York: Simon Schuster, 1975), 153. . 88. On Byrd's intent in writing the History, see Davis, intellectual Life, 59. 89. Byrd, Histories, 202. Jw 90. Historian Richard Davis, Intellectual Life, 59, 1367, 1373, has argued, for @1118, that Byrd was representative of his age and that the survey expedition Emblematic of the American experience. L 9-1. Byrd, Prose Works, 22-23. ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 10/02/2011 for the course HISTORY 101 taught by Professor Jenkins during the Spring '08 term at Rutgers.

Page1 / 10

Raibmon - CHAPTER TWO Naturalizing Power Land and Sexual...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 10. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online