Prompt 2

The bodies of the Native Americans as described in “Travel Writings”, vary from person to person and the unique experiences and interactions they have had with these peoples. However, nearly all seem to share many common themes, from which one can define the “New World body”-the bodies of these natives in the perspective of these early explorers of America.

The uncivilized nature of the natives is mentioned throughout the texts. John Lawson refers to them as ‘heathens’ on page 335 of the text, even when describing their beauty and comeliness. It is almost as if he thinks it strange for people of such uncivilized nature to be comely or beautiful, which may be why he writes about it in his accounts of his travels. Lawson is not the only one; George Shelvocke also notes the ‘savage appearance’ (339) of the Native Americans he encountered. William Bartram goes as far as to compare the natives to alligators. Through the descriptions of uncivilized nature of these people, the explorers also establish their bodies as threatening ones; George Shelvocke mention his Negros’ fear of the these people, and Samuel Hearne recounts an experience with these people that paints them as downright barbarous.

Another way the New World body is defined by the explorers is an uncovered body. The explorers mention the nudity of these people as well in their writings, because it is strange to them. As Europeans, they find it normal to have one’s bodies covered, as it is private. Thus they mention the stark contrast to their own norms that is expressed in the natives’ lack of clothing. I believe that in these writings, both genders are mentioned about the same, so these bodies are not gendered.

As for the 17th century map, I believe there are a few differences in the definition of the New World body as compared to the one portrayed by the maker of the map. These bodies seem markedly more civilized, while the body was described as much more savage in the travel writings. While some of these people have weapons in the illustrations, they are not wielding them in a threatening manner, and they seem much more like accessories than anything else. Also, most of these bodies are clothed, while the natives in the text were described as naked. This emphasizes the point that definitions are not universal and vary greatly depending on the perspective of the person making the definition.

Atkinson Extra Credit

In Tiffany Atkinson's chapter, she writes much about the 'naturalness' of the human body. However, I was unclear about what 'naturalness' means in her argument, as well as in a more general view of the human body. Is the 'natural' body merely a physical lack of anomalies? ' Body Worlds' exhibited plasticized bodies stripped of their skin; and with it, much of their identity as a former living being. Was Atkinson posing these bodies as being more natural? Can an argument or identity as an individual be 'natural' as well, or does the naturalness of the human body only exist in physical anatomy?

For the question posed, ‘How do bodies function in your environment?’ I can think of several different ways to answer. In terms of literal, human bodies, I find they work much like machines in my environment. This is especially true in my case of being at a large university. Many bodies have to be working, and playing their part in the system in order for it to work. Some bodies clean the halls of the dorm I live in, some bodies teach the classes that I attend. Some of the bodies aren’t directly related to me at all; but for how they function in my environment, they serve as noise and visual interest as they bustle along Speedway, or hassle me with fliers in West Mall. During my daily activities, I do not see these bodies as individuals, although I am aware that each body I see in on the streets or in my classes houses a brain, and in that brain a mind, and, in my opinion, in that mind a soul. This makes them all individuals, serving their own goals just like me, and I am a part of their environment, too. But I have little time to consider every individual, because, although I know it, the desires and fears they have, the goals, memories, all things that make up someone’s soul, are hidden to me. And all I see are bodies.

When I come to address the arguments these bodies are making, how they present themselves; it conveys a message to me, it is only a limited window into their identity. I tend to see more obvious their functions in relations to me than the arguments they make, lest their arguments give clues to their function in relation to myself or my environment. For example, if I see a rather shady looking character, meaning, the argument of his or her body is conveying hostility, I would tend to stay away from them because their function in my environment could be to be a threat to me. The argument is definitely a factor in determining the function of the body, but is limited in how is can express their individual nature with such limited interaction.

Another examples of bodies acting in terms of function rather than arguments expressing personal identities is the collective of the student body. One can tell by the term alone that one is grouping hundreds, thousands of unique interests and arguments into a collective by function. To be a student is the general function they have in their environment, as far as the university is concerned. To group students this fashion is forgetting about their unique bodies in some way, as they are being generalized by function. While the physical body is being largely ignored in a way, it’s not entirely negative, it’s merely a consequence of large institutions. One place where bodies remain important, however, is in the world of visual mass media; movies, television, and in many cases, on the internet. The body is very important in this media because the body itself is serving as the entertainment for the masses. Thus, the body simply cannot be ignored and is very important if so many eyes are on it, and it’s function in the environment is to provide entertainment.