High Culture of Mass Culture?

At some point in our class discussion of Emerson today Onno said that Emerson really facilitates the split between writing for a mass audience and writing for a higher literary culture. It seems as though Emerson was one of the first authors of the time to write to an elite few, highlighting the value of his rich ideas rather than the numbers of people reading them. In comparison to Emerson, it seems as though in Last of the Mohicans Cooper was trying to tow the line between writing for both high culture and a large mass of people. Through subtle yet different literary techniques in Cooper's Last of the Mohicans and Emerson's Nature we can examine who they were trying to reach from a literary standpoint, and how they were trying to reach those populations.

To focus specifically on Emerson's Nature, as we briefly discussed today, Emerson seems to cater to a small and elite group of readers. He begins his essay with an epigraph that quotes a Roman philosopher from another book written in 1820 called The True Intellectual System of the Universe. From the very first line of the essay he angles his discussion of nature towards people of a higher level of education. His essay continues to be crowded with other literary references that are used to support Emerson's argument, including a very specific reference to the "NOT ME" (most anything else beyond oneself that thus qualifies as nature) which, as the footnote states, "draws on Thomas Carlyle's Sartor Resartus." As Onno was saying in class today, Emerson was incredibly well read and clearly read many other types of literature from all other languages and cultures, however much of his essay is packed with referential evidence to support his points. This conscious choice to include references to elite forms of literature makes this essay much less susceptible to a lower class and thus begins to facilitate the aforementioned split between lower culture and high literary culture.

In a similar way, Cooper also opens every chapter of The Last of the Mohicans, with epigraphs. We began to discuss this in class, however, to extend on that, I think it's really intriguing that Cooper was catering to a larger audience hoping for popularity and that he wanted to make available a higher form of literature to the masses of the public. As other people have discussed in their posts, he opens his chapters with references to Shakespeare, Walter Scott, and Charles Parnell. However, unlike Emerson, his references are meant to emanate a sense of higher culture for the purposes of attracting people to his novel rather than scaring them away with an elite level of intelligence. Throughout The Last of the Mohicans Cooper doesn't make nearly as many references in need of footnotes as Emerson does, and he barely mentions any literature throughout the novel beyond what is quoted in the epigraphs of each chapter.

I find these two approaches to writing very interesting: Emerson uses his high level of intelligence to support his point and to relate to those with the same level of education as him; whereas Cooper uses his intellectual references as a hook to those who feel they need a higher education. It really intrigues me that these were effective strategies in these two authors getting what they wanted for their work's reception. Cooper's work was very popular, and even though some apparently though Emerson was a little crazy his beautiful language and discourse of nature are now held in very high opinions.

Mind Over Matter

In “Nature,” Emerson admonishes religion and ethics for separating nature and spirit. Specifically, he states that they “have an analogous effect with all lower culture, in degrading nature and suggesting its dependence on spirit” (p236). It’s one thing to have a relation between the two entities, but it’s another matter to enact a hierarchy between the two.

This also implies that there is a level of control that spirit has over nature. Humans today try to control nature, although most ways that we think about Emerson would probably argue that we are mimicking nature in a way that suits us better. Things in this category are labeled as “technology.”

Then there is fantasy and magic. Over and over again, people control and manipulate by exerting themselves over the elements. The strongest heroes and villains are the ones that master complete control over their domain, including elements and the dead. Summoning in most stories is with the implicit belief that the summoner can control the summoned. In worlds where anything can happen, it still comes down to who can control what.

Emerson argued for a symbiotic relationship between the two powers. But over and over we witness stories tell us it is strength in spirit that leads to the best ending. We haven’t learned Emerson’s teachings in this regard. So then I have to ask: when does nature control us?

Tracing language back to nature

We think of language as a brilliant construct of the human mind, one which distinguishes us from and elevates us above other species. In The Last of the Mohicans, language is used to denigrate Native Americans in a way, as their speech is compared to bird song and animal sounds. Though this could be interpreted as demeaning their language, it also implies that they are closer to nature. In Nature, Emerson argues that all language springs from nature: "Every word which is used to express a moral or intellectual fact, if traced to its root, is found to be borrowed from some material appearance." (223) (While typing that sentence I noticed that the word "root" itself clearly connects to plant roots.)
I wondered what Emerson would think of Native American languages if they were, as Cooper depicted them, closer to nature. Far from dehumanizing Native Americans, the nature of their languages might impress Emerson, who disparages the corruption of man and language, saying "Thus is nature an interpreter, by whose means man converses with his fellow men. A man's power to connect his thought with its proper symbol, and so utter it, depends on the simplicity of his character, that is, upon his love of truth and his desire to communicate it without loss."(224)
I greatly enjoyed reading Emerson's thought on language because he uses it so masterfully. His stance on the simplicity of words seems counterintuitive because he uses language and words so lyrically. But it makes sense that he could harness that simplicity to create beauty.

New Thoughts on Art and Beauty in Emerson's Nature

In Ralph Waldo Emerson’s introduction to Nature, the speaker asserts that contemporary humans tend to agree with previous philosophers’ thoughts on the formation and perception of the natural world. However, as Emerson points out, “The sun shines to-day also. There is more wool and flax in the fields. There are new men, new thoughts” (214). The speaker goes on to encourage the reader to form his or her own thoughts and beliefs on nature, and goes into much in depth analysis throughout this piece.

            What I personally find interesting about the beginning of this piece is how Emerson describes nature almost exclusively in a positive light. However, he does argue that nature brings more beauty to those who appreciate it and that very few adults truly appreciate nature. I enjoy Emerson’s description of those who appreciates nature and agree with the claims he makes. I believe the speaker is on point hen he assets, “the lover of nature is he whose inward and outward senses are still truly adjusted to each other; who has retained the spirit of infancy even into the era of manhood” (217). This description is exactly how I feel when I am outside on a beautiful summer day, or in the glen when it is fall and the wooded area is filled with activity. In these moments, I do feel a certain happiness that I did in infancy, even as an adult. I also feel as if not many humans appreciate the beauty of nature, hence the increased deforestation.

While he does note in his chapter labeled “Commodity” that nature is necessary to humans due to the food, water and shelter it gives, these byproducts are not nearly as important as other byproducts that nature brings. Emerson believes that the most important thing that nature brings is beauty, and with beauty comes art. The speaker describes different aspects of nature in an extremely rich manner in order to encapsulate a moment. For example, a January sunset is described as, “The western clouds divided and subdivided themselves into pink flakes modulated with tints of unspeakable softness; and the air had so much life and sweetness, that it was a pain to come within doors” (220). This rich detail is telling of not only how beautiful Emerson perceives nature to be, but it also displays how influential nature is on his life. After all, the nature that he describes in rich detail is the same nature he devotes time to in this piece in order to hypothesize its importance.

Inevitably, Emerson comes to the conclusion that art is a byproduct of nature’s beauty. I would have to agree with this claim as well. As can be seen in art, poetry and prose, various artists try to replicate the beauty of nature. This is even seen multiple times throughout Emerson’s piece. However, as the speaker explains, using a river as an example, “Art cannot rival this pomp of purple and gold” (220). Using this example, the speaker makes his main contention: the beauty of nature is unparalleled, but is the inspiration for art.

Taste or Art?

Though expressed differently in tone and format, Ralph Waldo Emerson's book Nature and his address "The American Scholar" share with James Fenimore Cooper's The Last of the Mohicans a reverence for the beauty and power of the natural world. However, where Cooper harkens back to the unbridled harshness of the formative days of the United States for his inspiration, Emerson sees (and wishes for others to see) plenty to marvel at in the settings provided by his own age, postulating that one need not worship the potentiality for danger in the wild to observe it and, more importantly, learn from it. As he so pithily puts it, "the sun shines to-day also" (214). Look around and be happy, he says, for there is much to take in. Cooper's prolonged, attentive descriptions attest to this character of nature, though after reading these two of Emerson's works, one is forced to ask how Emerson might classify Cooper's text. In Nature, Emerson says that a "love of beauty is Taste" while a "creation of beauty is Art" (222). In a later chapter on "Idealism," he formulates a linked thought in a similar fashion, stating, "the sensual man conforms thoughts to things; the poet conforms things to his thoughts" (233). The Last of the Mohicans drunkenly walks the line between these two classifications, alternately veering between Cooper's distinct ideas on American identity and his simplistic acceptance of beauty or old, untested intellect at face value.

Violence and its' Role in Establishing Masculinity

The setting in Cooper's novel is critical to the major events and action scenes. The war between the French and Indians  brings with it many acts of violence that to readers and even Cooper seem "inhuman" (204). The violence itself persists as a theme throughout the story, but it seems like it could be driven by the stereotype of men and women and their said roles in society.

War and violence is not prejudice to the color of ones skin, in the sense that there is intergroup conflicts and larger rivalries between groups. There seems to be no way of escaping acts of violence no matter what blood the characters were made up of. What did stand out to me was that no women seemed to be brutally harmed, until the killing of Cora. Especially for the Indians it seemed as if they could not bare the thought of harming women- as if they were weak and needed to be protected. This idea that women were weak could easily drive the violence between men to be more gruesome than actually needed.

For a man to be called a women, even in modern times, is an insult to character. Masculinity is simply earned by defeating other male threats around them. The man that can defeat any enemy at ease, or the largest group of enemies, in the most gruesome way,  will surely be considered the most masculine. But that’s not always the the case

Cooper describes characters reactions to war scenes in such a way that is gloomy and regretful. After using his last shot to take a man out of his misery, Heyward felt repulsed by his own doings. After the massacre all the characters "felt such a deep stake in their happiness" (207). All these thoughts brought me to my final, very ambiguous, question. If the men need violence to establish their identities in society, but regret their horrid acts, what is the limit on violence and war? What is too much, if needed at all?

From Sea To Shining Sea

"Mine ear is open, and my heart prepared:

The worst is worldly loss thou canst unfold: -

Say, is my kingdom lost?" -Shakespeare 

The above quote sets the tone of Cooper's The Last of The Mohicans with a solemn and serious voice. As the first chapter unfolds, Cooper is purposeful about describing the setting, both historical and geographical, of the novel. It is nearly impossible to miss Cooper's emphasis on geographical setting in particular. Indeed, just as the chosen Shakespeare quote centers on a kingdom, it is only after Cooper has thoroughly described the "kingdom" where the novel takes place that he moves on to describe historical context in more detail. 

"It was in this scene of strife and bloodshed that the incidents we shall attempt to relate occurred, during the third year of the war which England and France waged for the possession of a country that neither was destined to reign" (2).

In class we discussed how Cooper presents an idea of Americanness, and I believe that one of the chief ways in which he does this is through clear, detailed, and romantic presentation of geographical setting. The novel is filled with rich imagery depicting the untamed American wilderness, and characters such as Hawkeye and the Mohicans are admired for their intimate knowledge of the land.

This presentation of land as central to an idea of Americanness is consistent with sources outside of The Last of The Mohicans. America is "the land of the free" and "home of the brave". Katherine Lee Bates' America the Beautiful hails the beauty of America from "sea to shining sea."

O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!
America! America! God shed His grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea! 

Indeed, America is a melting pot of race, culture, and ideas. One of the few concrete things that all Americans share is the country we inhabit and a belief in the freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness. Cooper's emphasis on the former illustrates the wild beauty of America, and gives the reader a greater appreciation for what America was and is today.

Racial and Cultural Differences Highlighted by Familial Structures

 

             In class we explored the cultural and racial divisions presented in the novel and discussed how the two concepts are interrelated.

One way in which these issues are manifested is through Cooper’s portrayal of literal and metaphorical families. Although it is eventually revealed that Cora and Alice have different biological mothers and that Cora has bi-racial roots, the two daughters and Munro are presented as a “traditional” European family tied together by blood relations. Their separation and the disruption of their family bond are great tensions throughout the novel. The intimacy of their relationship is highlighted in the beginning of Chapter XVI when they are finally reunited. Alice is described as childishly sitting “upon [her father’s] knee, parting the grey hairs on the forehead of the old man” and “pressing her ruby lips fondly on his wrinkled brow,” while Cora observes them with “maternal fondness” (177). This affectionate moment acts as a temporary resolution in the novel and has the effect of suspending the plot. The sense of security gained in one another’s presence allows the family to momentarily forget the dangers they have been exposed to and the separation they experienced. The daughters, united by a shared father, provide a stark contrast to the metaphorical families represented by the Native American tribes. The Hurons and Mohicans are not tied together purely by blood relations; rather, they comprise larger families united by their red skin tone and brute language and actions. Interestingly Hawk-eye is not part of either of these family structures; he shares the skin tone and intuition of the tribal people but vehemently defends his difference from them and his “whiteness.”

The end of the novel initially appears to suggest that Cora’s and Uncas’s deaths and the disruption of both familial structures finally transcend racial and cultural barriers. Even in mourning, Munro hopes to convey that “time shall not be distant, when we may assemble around his throne, without distinction of sex, or rank, or colour” (391). This statement indicates significant progress and improved relations between Europeans and Native Americans. However, Hawk-eye refuses to translate this message to the Delawares and the sentiment is forever lost. Furthermore, when Chingachgook expresses distress at loosing his son and the only other remaining member of the Mohicans, Hawk-eye can only offer his friendship. In trying to comfort Chingachgook, Hawk-eye highlights their differences, stating, “the gifts of our colors may be different…” and “it may be that your blood was nearer [to Uncas’s] (394). Despite the mentorship Hawk-eye provides Uncas and the difficulties Hawk-eye and Chingachgook have faced together, Hawk-eye refuses to fully identify with Chingachgook and embrace him as family. Hawk-eye prevents true progress in the novel and may represent Cooper’s own belief that early America is not yet prepared for racial integration. 

How Cooper Creates a Racial Archetype for the American Indian

In The Last of the Mohicans, Cooper portrays the white characters as greatly varied from each other. Heyward clings to European ideals, while Hawk-eye has rejected them completely. The scout's naturalistic philosophy also profoundly contrasts David's European religiosity and lack of traditional masculinity. Munro's despair cripples his resolve, while Heyward and Hawk-eye transform their problems into action. Montcalm's tacit endorsement of the massacre displays a betrayal of morals that the other characters are not capable of.

Cooper handles his Native American characters in a much more formulaic manner. Uncas and Chingachgook, though one more youthful than the other, display quite similar personalities, marked by loyalty, stoicism, and competence in battle. Page 222 explicitly points out their similarities, when the narrator states that Uncas sits down with "the same appearance of indifference as was maintained by his father." The similar characterizations of Uncas and Chingachgook, though apparent, do not necessarily confirm any racial misrepresentations or lack of realism; children mimic their parents' personalities (Alice certainly behaves like Munro).

But relation of blood does not account for a similar personality residing in Magua, the story's dreaded antagonist: "Magua continued to smoke, with the same meditative air that he usually maintained" (p. 281). The narrator also seems to point out that this stoic, though battle-like, trait is intrinsic to all American Indians by explicitly stating that "Those beings... were alike so impetuous, and yet so self-restrained" (p. 285). The narrator also states, and frequently explains, the American Indians' "characteristic" cunning (p. 314). 

Cooper's imagery also serves to dehumanize the American Indian. The narrator frequently describes war-like bands and crowds of Native Americans. On page 270, during the Huron pursuit of Uncas, the narrator describes the Hurons as "a dark mass of human forms, tossed and involved in inexplicable confusion." Similarly, regardless of specific character or tribe, all American Indian characters speak in notably exotic and musical voices (although this is probably due in part to the tonal nature of many American Indigenous languages) and express themselves in battle with violent and terrifying war-cries.

Cooper uses a prescribed formula that dehumanizes American Indians into an archetype entailing stoicism, apathy, exotic appearance and sound, war-like aggression, and prowess in battle, thus exhibiting them as little more than the physical manifestation of their perceived culture. The novel, though opening a vibrant and enticingly inconclusive discussion about race and its relevance to the formation of an American identity, fails to depict its Native American characters in an original, varying, or humanizing manner.

How Flattery Divides the Races

In The Last of the Mohicans, many different tactics are used to separate the European characters from the native characters. One that we haven't talked about is the use of flattery. I find it very interesting that Heyward, who is supposed to be out of place in the wilderness and foreign to the native's ways, somehow has a very good understanding of their customs for interaction through flattery that he seems to have learned on his own. When Heyward, Alice, Cora, and Gamut are captured by Magua in the beginning, Heyward makes a point of flattering Magua in the hopes of changing the direction they're traveling. Heyward says he is worthy of his honorable name (Le Renard Subtil) and calls him wise and a great chief (108). Much later, when Heyward is in the Huron camp, he wins the important men of the tribe over by flattering them. In response to a question regarding his appearance, Heyward says that he has removed his normal clothing and painted himself in the style of the natives as an act of respect. This pronunciation is met with a "low murmur of applause [that] announced that the compliment to the tribe was favourably received" (267). Somehow, Heyward knows that flattery is the way to convince the natives of his innocence and trustworthiness.

This custom is supported by Magua's actions when he's trying to retrieve his prisoners from the Delaware camp. When asked to, essentially, plead his case before the tribe, Magua stands and gives a speech in which he says nothing of the prisoners or who he is, but condemns the actions of the white men and praises the Lenni Lenape, the Delaware's ancestors (340). He has the tribe's rapt attention of the tribe, whose eyes were "riveted on his own, heads erect" and spoke with "eager voices." Here we see that flattery is not just a ploy by Heyward, but a legitimate oral communication technique used by the natives (according to Cooper) to achieve power over people.

Cooper sets up a dichotomy between the natives who are easily swayed by flattery, and the Europeans who see it as a servile and unimpressive. After Heyward compliments Montcalm during the battle at Fort William Henry, praising the "vigour" of his excellency, "Montcalm, in his turn, slightly bowed, but it was with the air of a man too practiced to remember the language of flattery" (174). The use of flattery serves to lower the status of the natives in the eyes of the audience since it is not equated with honesty, making the natives look foolish. Because of our own customs, it is hard to recognize flattery as an art form and the sign of a great orator and leader.

Old, New, and the Land in Between

One aspect of the novel that I found particularly interesting was the manner in which its small band of main band of main characters acts as a microcosm of America’s condition during the French and Indian war. It contains, among others, the last of a particular tribe of Native Americans– who are, in a sense, the original Americans– as well as a character who represents another type of “first” American.

What does it mean to be an American, and how did the first one come to be? Does one need to be born in America? Have American parents? Embody American culture (whatever that may be)? I would argue that the cultural aspect is the most important part, even though we discussed race at length in class as well as how race compares to culture. And in the case of the novel, American culture seems intrinsically tied to land.

The concept of the frontier is very American. When settlers arrived from Europe, a continent mapped down to the inch, they arrived on a barely tamed patch of land with thousands of miles stretching to the west. The concept of exploring the back country, first on the fringes of the original thirteen colonies, then further west, and further, was essential to the early days of the United States. And Cooper demonstrates that that land was a major link between Native Americans and new Americans. The Mohicans in the novel have an intimate understanding of the land, and seem almost a part of the landscape itself, in the way they are able to move about it unnoticed. Hawk-eye, on the other hand, is eager to embrace the land, though not as skilled as moving through it. He therefore embodies the spirit of the early American adventurer, and, indeed, becomes an image of the first American. He owes the land, and his knowledge of it, to the Native Americans; his zeal for understanding it (which will later translate, for America, into a zeal to conquer it) is what makes him American. The land is the link between the old and the new.

Nature's Role in Last of the Mohicans

Cooper's characters are outdoors for a vast majority of the novel and constantly battle with the terrain around them. I think Cooper describes the setting well, and not only do we find out a lot about the surroundings through his characters' interactions with the world around them, but we discover specific qualities among the characters as well.

The simplest example would be Hawkeye, who understands and respects the land. His knowledge contributes greatly to his heroism and his ability to lead the group consistently throughout the novel. Contrastingly, Hawkeye's counterpart Heyward does not have a true grasp on the natural world around him. This is evident when he fails to notice the Indian hiding in the forest early in the novel.

As Indian tribes traditionally are, the Native Americans that Cooper describes are incredibly in-tune with nature. One example is Magua's use of caves to hide Cora and Alice after capturing them.

Perhaps an example of what sets Cora apart from the traditional female during this time period is her ability to think on her feet and devise plans to help save the group. She suggests the men escape through the river so that they will not leave a trail behind them, illustrating an intellectual relationship with the world around her.

Cora as a Strong Female Character (Well... Not Quite)

In class last Thursday, the topic of Cora as a strong (or at least stronger than usual) female character came up in the discussion. Cora acts as a female character that strays away from normal stereotypes. She's heroic, willing to sacrifice herself, and does not sit idly by. Sounds like a pretty exceptional female character, right? Eh, not quite. She provides a prime contrast to Alice, who is a fairly weak character in comparison, yet does not achieve the same level of desirability. Is it just her mixed ethnicity that is off-putting, or is it her heroism as well? Is it the fact that Cora is more independent and daring that makes her less appealing? The conventional relationship of Alice and Heyward has hope to prevail at the end of the novel, leaving a fiery atypical female character without a happy ending (though I was not surprised considering this is a novel written in the early 1800's).

However, I came across this article, and what struck me most after reading the fates of these two women in The Last of the Mohicans alongside this article was the prominence of this idea of a "strong female lead that still needs saving," even in today's society. This novel, written before any obvious women's suffrage movements, shows an early demonstration of how female characters, even when they are apparently strong and independent, are unable to fulfill a happy ending without the aid of some heroic figure, if at all. After reading the aforementioned article about the weakness in today's lead female characters in popularized films, I found parallels between the author's criticism of so-called strong female characters and how Cora fits into The Last of the Mohicans. In particular, the author of the article notes that when a strong female character is threatened or captured by the villain (cue Cora's capture scene), it seems that breaking down her pride is fundamentally her primary importance in the story. And so of course, Cora gets captured, needs her heroic lead to rescue her, but even that doesn't happen, and the significantly less multi-dimensional Alice is rescued instead.

With this, is Cooper basically implying that submissive women are more successful? Maybe. Or at least that's the fate of this novel anyway. And has that sentiment changed overtime in today's pop culture and film? Not really, as even "strong female leads" quite often depend on their heroic rescues. This is not to say that all movies and films in pop culture today are anti-feminist and there does not exist any "true" strong female lead, but rather to show how the weak female character development in this novel, even being written centuries ago, has not quite yet been outdated.

The "Noble" or "Not-So Noble" Savage?

This isn't my first experience with Cooper's The Last of the Mohicans; the last time I flipped through the pages of this dense 400-pager, I was a junior in high school trying to make my way through Cooper's heavy, flowery language over Christmas Break. At the time, I was much more concerned with finishing the book than appreciating its themes and peculiarities, so when I first realized that we would be covering this text, I was excited to be able to actually give this novel a more thorough and fair second try.

One aspect of the novel that has intrigued me, even upon my first encounter of it, is the portrayal of the natives in the novel and how Cooper's descriptions and characterization of them interplays with the notion of the "noble savage". Actually, at the present time, I can't tell if Cooper's representation of Indians like Uncas, Chingachgook, and Magua, for example, honors this perception or combats it. Maybe the novel does a little bit of both. That seems to be my understanding at the present time.

The "noble savage" idea paints the picture of peoples (natives) who have retained a simplicity and goodness of nature because they haven't yet been exposed to the supposed evils that come along with civilization and westernization. This is a more positive perception of aboriginal peoples, celebrating their purity and critiquing the materialism, avarice, and other moral ramifications of civilization. I vaguely remember writing a paper on this topic with regard to the novel in my high school literature class, but I can't really recall whether I believed that this perception is one that applies in The Last of the Mohicans or not.

I personally think that Cooper at once supports and refutes this notion. If there are in fact any "noble savages" present in the novel, the last two Mohicans, Uncas and Chingachgook are the ones to most likely fit the bill. They possess a knowledge of the woodlands and terrain of the northeastern frontier unrivaled by those of the "pale faces"; their use of knife and tomahawk more than once prevails over the means used by those with more advanced technology; they maintain a respect and admiration of nature and the wilderness not conspicuous in the ways of the Englishmen and Frenchmen.

Yet, is the characterization of these Mohicans enough to portray humans as "essentially good" when, meanwhile, Cooper illustrates myriad scenes in which natives perform deed, without a second thought or reservation, that seem grotesque or almost inhuman in nature? It's hard to say that this idea of a "noble savage" applies absolutely in the novel when we view natives brutally smashing a wee babe against a rock right in front of its mother and then driving a tomahawk into the mother's brain, or removing the scalps of their victims with nothing more than a simple knife. Intense violent acts as these contribute more to an understanding of indigenous peoples as "wild", "uncivilized", and "subhuman", instead of as "pure" and "untainted" human beings. Do you understand my confusion a little bit now? Not that the novel has to have chosen one portrayal over the other- it seems to me that both perspectives towards natives are observed in Cooper's novel. These perspectives also largely play into discussions of race and racism that come up frequently with regard to this text. After all, just look at how many times skin color is referred to in the novel!

I'm curious to see what you all have to say on this topic. It's always interesting to investigate this idea of "the other" and how this us/them division calls into question race, history, and different schools of thought.

Cora vs. Alice

Cora and Alice Munro, though sisters, juxtapose each other as a way to send a message about race. Cora is the dark-haired daughter who is not only racially mixed, but is also romantically drawn to the Indian, Uncas. She is seen coming up with the plan for Hawk-eye, Uncas, and Chingachgook to escape and find help. She is also seen conversing with Magua about the terms of their release and though it involves her capture, she doesn’t shrink back in fear. Cora is more outspoken than Alice. She isn’t necessarily wild but she still stands up for herself and shows courage throughout the novel.

Alice is one of the more frustrating characters because she seems weak and scared of everything that surrounds her. She is beautiful, genteel and romantic and we watch as Heyward falls in love with her. Unlike Cora, she is blonde, racially “pure”, and very feminine.

By contrasting the two sisters, Cooper could be indicating a link between race and this “wildness”. As though Cora could have been like her sister but because she is racially mixed, she stands out. Not only are her appearance and actions different, but also she seems to always be in the middle of trouble and doom.

Though Cooper may be referring to racial mixing negatively, Cora is such a powerful character because of her strength and bravery she continuously displays.