Bias

The thing in John Smith's History of Virginia that most struck me, even before we discussed it in class, was the bias shown by the author. John Smith was regarded by his fellows as a mutineer and a power-hungry murderer, but somehow he managed to paint himself as a renegade hero, the champion of the Jamestown colony and the only righteous person in the New World.

My biggest question regarding this bias is: was it subconscious or intentional? Was John Smith a master schemer who knew how to create a rags-to-riches tale that his audience would eagerly lap up? Or was he really so deluded as to believe himself the only sane man on his excursion?

Even now, opinions are divided as to whether Smith was a hero or an outlaw. One of the main reasons for this, I believe, is because Smith is one of our only complete sources regarding the events at Jamestown. Those who read his journal and take it as fact would see Smith in a totally different light than those who read it skeptically. I think it all boils down to how much we trust Smith as a reliable narrator.

As we discussed in class, we can evaluate how much we should trust Smith based on his track record and on how much he had to gain from lying. It's true that Smith wasn't necessarily well-respected in his early years, but these too are subject to interpretation--was he a disloyal, money-grabbing soldier-for-hire, or did his years in the military teach him responsibility, survival, and the value of hard work? But he did have plenty to gain from lying, just like Cabeza de Vaca before him.

In particular, Pocahontas is an interesting case. According to Smith, she saved his life--but he only wrote this account many years after it allegedly happened, and once Pocahontas had become popular in England. Did he retcon his own personal canon to profit from Pocahontas' fame? It would make a lot of sense, but we can't prove anything, since the only witnesses there were the Native Americans (who, as far as I know, did not record the incident at all) and Smith himself.

I believe the evidence points to Smith being strongly and, likely, intentionally biased, but ultimately we cannot prove this. All we can do is read Smith's account, take it with a grain of salt, and compare/contrast our sources.