Starving Time: The Founding of Jamestown

 by Derek McSwain

The first year of the Jamestown colony, 1607, was a harsh one. At the beginning July many of the colonists (at this point the population contained 144 men) fell ill. By September over 40 of the colonists died of illness, and the remainder were too ill to guard against attacks by the native population, with whom they had a tenuous peace. Edward Maria Wingfield, Virginia’s council president stated that “gods onely mercy did now watch and Warde for us”.^[1] Compounding this problem was a lack of food, forcing Wingfield to enact strict rationing. The rationing sowed discord among the Englishmen, with other council members demanding Wingfield give them a larger and larger shares. Eventually Wingfield would be deposed by the council, who accused him of “starving the Collony”. For his part, the president swore that he had “allwayes give[n] every man his allowance faithfully” and accused other councilors of stealing food.^[2] After Wingfield’s departure, the famines and hardship persisted, and it was many years before life in Jamestown was no longer fraught with danger. 

The experience of Wingfield is telling, as it details how quickly the social structure of the colony decayed. For a group of people from a society which prized respect for hierarchy on both sides and valued “neighborliness,” their behavior in this period as well as in the early colonies as a whole can provide valuable insight into English life. There were many important factors that caused the loss of life in the early settlements: hostile natives, poor planning and poor growing weather. However, an extremely important element should not be overlooked: the breakdown of the social structure that had been an integral part of British life. Being isolated in a new land, living among a foreign culture, and facing adversity, the adaptation and transformation of British society determined whether the colonies would survive.

Given the far reach it would eventually have, the first attempts at colonization by the English (later to be British) Crown were very unsuccessful. In response to the great territorial gains made by the Spanish, Queen Elizabeth issued patents granting the authority to colonize the Americas in the name of the Crown. It was hoped that by establishing colonies on the other side of the Atlantic, the British could both gain an important vanguard against the Spanish Empire, as well as a reliable source of income. 

The initial colonies in the coastal areas of Virginia and North Carolina could be charitably described as disasters in terms of loss of life, with the first one completely disappearing within nine years and the second suffering years of starvation, disease and violence. It would only be after decades of hardship that the settlements of British North America would be stable and, perhaps most importantly to the crown, profitable.

One esteemed recipient of Queen Elizabeth’s patents was Sir Walter Raleigh, the naval hero who helped to defeat the Spanish Armada. Under his guidance, the first colony Roanoke, an island off the coast of modern day North Carolina, was established and garrisoned in a 1585 expedition led by Richard Grenville. A conflict with the local American Indian population led to an evacuation of all but fifteen men. By the time John White^[3] returned with settlers in 1587, there was no sign of the garrison. White had intended to settle in the Chesapeake Bay region, but the captain of three refused to sail further north, forcing him to establish his colony in an area known to be dangerous. After returning to England for more supplies, White was delayed and unable to return to Roanoke until 1590, finding the site completely deserted.

Given the ambiguous fate of the Roanoke colonies, it is difficult to determine how the settlers adapted to life in the New World. John White wrote an account of Roanoke covering the initial establishment of the colony that was printed in Principal Navigations…[3]  a collection of works on the early colonial explorations, printed by Richard Hakluyt. His account reveals that the settlement would be plagued by many of the same problems as the ultimately successful Jamestown. The relationship English colonists had with the local tribes would prove especially vital to the success or failure of the English in the early colonial days. White’s initial contacts with one of the local tribes, referred to only as “divers Savages” from the mainland, was violent. One of the settlers, George Howe, was crab fishing alone some miles away from his compatriots when he was violently attacked and killed by several natives. White was uncertain as to why the natives were on Roanoke Island,[4]  he theorized that they were most likely either hunting deer or attempting to gather intelligence on the newly arrived colonists. In any case, the group fled quickly after murdering Howe, leaving behind a large amount of supplies.^[4] 

The motives behind the murder are also mysterious, and the English were unable to determine why Howe was killed. However, it can be reasonably assumed that natives felt that Howe had committed some sort of transgression and lost his life as a result. What is most important, however, is that Howe apparently felt safe enough to crab fishing alone, miles from his friends, even after the settlers arrived to find no trace of the 15 man garrison. It seems that Howe felt there was no further danger lurking on Roanoke Island. While this could have been carelessness, it also demonstrates how unprepared the English were for life in America. To the English, raised in a land with clearly defined boundaries of parishes, boroughs and counties, the New World seemed to be an untamed wilderness. A member of the 1585 expedition, Thomas Hariot, wrote extensively on the inhabitants of Virginia and North Carolina; detailing their society and cultural beliefs.^[5] Hariot seems to have understood to some degree that there was great population of natives in North America, even claiming that some native towns were larger than those in England. However, he still felt that the area contained places where “no Christian prince hath any possession or dealing” that could be exploited for natural resources.^[6] Hariot’s phrasing in this writing is revealing, showing that even an Englishman with extensive knowledge of the natives could still view them as little more than an obstacle, much like the rest of the environment. In later years, the outbreak of disease brought from Europe would severely reduce the native population; Hariot observed the disastrous effect of disease in his travels.^[7] The effects of disease would eventually tip the scales in favor of the English settlers, but in their initial contacts with the natives, the English were at a great disadvantage.

Following the failure of the Roanoke colony, the successor to Queen Elizabeth, James I, issued further patents to groups, wishing to settle in British claimed North America.^[8] The group which won the rights to the Virginia was the London Company, comprised of merchants and nobles from the city. In 1606, they dispatched three ships to Virginia, with detailed orders on how to establish the colony. The man whose name would become synonymous with Jamestown, John Smith, spent much of the voyage clapped in irons, having been accused of plotting to overthrow the leaders of the expedition and take control of the colony himself. Smith would face imprisonment in the New World several times, being released after the founding of Jamestown, captured by the Pamunkey tribe, traded to the Powhatan Confederation, released and then accused of murder and imprisoned by the Jamestown council to await execution as the colony was being disbanded.^[9] Smith was saved by the arrival of more settlers, and won his freedom, taking command of the colony from 1608 until he was injured in 1609 and deposed.

Captain John Smith is among the better documented residents of early Jamestown. This is due to both his serving as council president in the perilous early years of Jamestown and his voluminous (and somewhat self-aggrandizing) accounts of his adventures. In popular historiography, Smith is often held as the man who singlehandedly saved the colony through his forceful personality and leadership skills. There is some degree of truth to this, as the colony’s fortunes definitely improved during his tenure. It is far more enlightening, however, to view Smith’s actions through the lens of the English social structure: how he subverted the English mindset, as well as his own adherence to the English worldview.

As shown earlier, the Jamestown colony suffered from chronic shortages of food. This is somewhat baffling, given the frequent mentions of abundant game and edible plants in accounts of Virginia. Thomas Hariot correctly saw the origins of this problem in the earlier Roanoke settlement, blaming the overabundance of mostly urban and wealthy settlers among the expedition. Hariot felt that these men were accustomed to a softer sort of living, with “soft beds” and “daintie food.” Being deprived of this, “the country to them was miserable”, despite the resources available. Hariot also believed that these settlers were averse to working for the good of the community, preferring to “pamper their bellies”.^[10]

John Smith concurred with this assessment upon taking command of Jamestown in 1608. In a startling speech before the assembled colony, Smith railed against those who refused to work, stating that the labors of 30 or 40 honest men would not be used to feed 150 “idle varlets”. From then on, the rule would be “that he who will not worke shall not eate”.^[11] Captain Smith’s declaration shows one of the liabilities the English suffered due to their societal mores. According to the hierarchical society the colonists had been raised in, performing physical labor was seen as a task for the lower classes, unworthy of the more noble settlers. Smith, however, was willing to enforce harsh punishments to those who clung to these ideals and managed to get people to work, and therefore, curbed the horrific famine. Yet at the same time, it is worth noting that Smith was also reinforcing the English ideal of a community that provides for the common good.

Once Smith had returned to England in 1609, the famines continued, and the social fabric of the colony was ripped apart. According to William Simmons, a colonist whose account was published alongside others in Smith’s The Generall Historie of Virginia…, the food shortage grew more and more severe. Although the colonists had been able to receive food from the native population, they received “mortall wounds”. Within half a year, the colony’s population had dropped from 500 to 60 due to deaths from starvation, disease and attacks by the natives.^[12] 

During this perilous time, the remaining colonists survived off of the barest of foods: roots, nuts, berries and even the skin of the horses that had since been slaughtered. Most shockingly, there were also incidences of cannibalism. Simmons reports that some colonists exhumed the body of a slain native and ate it. One went even further, murdering and cannibalizing his wife. Simmons notes that this was remembered as “the starving time”and was a source of  shame for years to come. According to him, the cause of the famine was not the “barenesse and defect of the Countrie,” as the colony had never received regular supplies from England. Instead, it was the conduct of the colony and their leaders that had caused it.^[13]

The popular depiction of the Roanoke and Jamestown colonists as bumbling and naïve clearly has some basis in truth. A great deal of mistakes and poor leadership had led to the loss of many lives. Nevertheless, it is important to examine why the colonies faced such travails through a more rational framework. Apart from being undone by their personal flaws, the English colonists were just as hampered by their adherence to a social structure that was incompatible with the life on the frontier of the New World.

Brief Bio

McSwain is a grad student in Appalachian State's Historic Preservation program. A life-long resident of North Carolina, he is particularly interested in early Colonial and Southern history. Once he completes his studies, he hopes to work with a local government or the National Parks Service in preservation. In his spare time he enjoys reading science fiction and drawing.

---

^[1] Edward Maria Wingfield, “A Discourse of Virginia” (date unknown, first published 1860), in Writings: With Other Narratives of Roanoke, Jamestown, and the First English Settlement of America by John Smith, et al. James P.P. Horn, ed. (New York: Library of America, 2007), 951-952.

^[2] Wingfield, 958.

^[3] John White (date of birth and death are unknown) had been a member of the 1585 expedition as well as a 1577 expedition to Baffin Island, Canada. White’s paintings of the inhabitants and ecology of North Carolina would serve as the basis for widely disseminated engravings during the 16^th-17^th Centuries.

^[4] John White “Narrative of his Voyage” (1589), in Writings: With Other Narratives of Roanoke, Jamestown, and the First English Settlement of America by John Smith, et al. James P.P. Horn, ed. (New York: Library of America, 2007), 807-808.

^[5] Thomas Hariot (1560-1621) was scientist and scholar, the first to study North Carolina and Virginia. A close associate of Sir Walter Raleigh, he sought to drum up public interest in colonization by publishing a pamphlet on his observations in 1588.

^[6] Thomas Hariot, “A Briefe and True Report” (1588), in, Writings: With Other Narratives of Roanoke, Jamestown, and the First English Settlement of America by John Smith, et al. James P.P. Horn, ed. (New York: Library of America, 2007), 901-902.

^[7] Harriot, 900.

^[8] Sir Walter Raleigh had fallen out of favor with Queen Elizabeth late in her reign, and was imprisoned in the Tower of London intermittently and later executed during James I’s reign in 1618.

^[9] Smith also claimed to have been enslaved by the Ottoman Turks during one of his earlier adventures.

^[10] Hariot, 877.

^[11] John Smith, “The Proceedings” (1612), in Writings: With Other Narratives of Roanoke, Jamestown, and the First English Settlement of America by John Smith, et al. James P.P. Horn, ed. (New York: Library of America, 2007), 97.

^[12] Several hundred new colonists had arrived with supplies, but their ship sank off the coast. Many of the people had been saved, but the loss of the supplies put even more strain on the colony’s ability to feed itself.

^[13] William Simmons, “The Genrall Historie of Virginia…” (1624) in Writings: With Other Narratives of Roanoke, Jamestown, and the First English Settlement of America by John Smith, et al. James P.P. Horn, ed. (New York: Library of America, 2007),411-12.

---

3 Angry Men: Politics in Film History Examining Chaplin, Gavras, & Lumet

by Ashlee Lanier

Since the beginning of the film industry, directors have realized the potential power accessible to them through the medium of film.  For the purposes of this post, I will just be focusing on the works of three of the most politically subversive directors in film history: Charlie Chaplin, Costa-Gavras, and Sidney Lumet.

As his career bloomed, Chaplin’s films became increasingly political - ultimately leading to a denial for his re-entry into the United States in 1952 (he would not return until 1972 to accept his honorary Oscar).   Chaplin’s 1917 film The Immigrant is perhaps the earliest and most innocent example of his political opinion appearing in his work.  Chaplin’s framing of the Statue of Liberty and a group of relieved on-looking immigrants aboard a ship (his Tramp character included) depict the hope newcomers held when finally making it to America’s shores.  However, this happy moment is brought to an abrupt end as an immigration officer corrals the group and, in an act of slapstick protest, Chaplin’s character kicks the officer.

(Still from The Immigrant: relieved immigrants looking towards the Statue of LIberty)

This light-hearted attempt at mocking authority prevailed through much of Chaplin’s early work, but by the 1930s he took a much more serious tone when addressing the many problems he found within America. His 1936 film Modern Times attacked America’s capitalistic economy and increasingly industrialized workforce. By 1940 he was attacking the dictatorial governments of Germany and Italy (and America’s isolationist politics) with The Great Dictator.  Eventually his communist party ideals became too much for a deeply conservative America (and an increasingly paranoid J. Edgar Hoover), and he was denied re-entry into America after the release of his 1952 film Limelight. Chaplin remained successful in Europe and in 1957 released one of most politically influenced films to date, A King In New York.  Throughout the film, Chaplin’s character criticizes American capitalism, commercialism, and Hollywood culture while also getting some comical revenge when his character drenches the House of Un-American Activities with a fire hose.

Like Chaplin, Costa-Gavras’ films critiqued the political corruption found within entire governments.  His 1969 film Z focused on a fictionalized version of the actual assassination of a leftist Greek politician in 1963, while at the same time, critiquing Greece’s then current military dictatorship.  Gavras’ 1970 film The Confession and 1972 State of Siege both condemn totalitarian governments as well as depict the repression of those in opposition to the powers at be in Czechoslovakia and Uruguay respectively.  

(Still from Z)

In similar fashion, Sidney Lumet challenged corrupt systems in the U.S. with a slew of films including 12 Angry Men, Dog Day Afternoon, Serpico, and Network to name a few.  While Gavras and Chaplin challenged whole governments, Lumet usually explored themes of injustice and corruption on the local and city level often set in New York City.  Serpico examined the corruption within both the New York City Police Department and the city government while his anti-establishment film Dog Day Afternoon focuses on queer politics and the counter-culture movement of the 1970s.  

(Still from Serpico)

As these three directors have proven, film can be an excellent way to expose corruption and injustice. When used to its full potential it can even enact social change.  Chaplin, Gavras, and Lumet all took their unique subject matter and displayed it in a way that made the audience want to care about the political and social issues of the day. In doing so, they gave film a more meaningful context in which to be further appreciated.  

~Super brief author bio~

Ashlee is a Historic Preservation grad student who did her undergrad at NC State in osteoarchaeology & history, but besides studying old bones, she likes to watch art-house film & listen to ’60s British mod music. Her favorite films are City Lights, Dog Day Afternoon, Godfather Part II, & The Royal Tenenbaums; she also watches too much TV & enjoys complaining about everything.

Poverty and Racism in the Age of Neoliberalism: The New Face of an Old Struggle

by Connor Harney

Eric Hobsbawm once wrote that, “The destruction of the past, or rather the social mechanism that link one’s contemporary experience to that of earlier generations, is one of the most characteristic and eerie phenomena of the late twentieth century.”[1]  These phenomena have only become magnified as the triumph of neoliberalism, and its correspondent postmodern philosophy have converged to create a society that no longer has any relevant connection to the past but rather reproduces itself with little to no notion of continuity or direction.  Rather, society is in a constant process of collective forgetting, due in part to news media.  In such a world, events appear as though from nowhere.  This piece was originally written in the wake of the Freddie Gray tragedy and its subsequent fallout and condescension on social media at the violent nature of the Baltimore protests. As events have unfolded, this article is just as relevant, and allows recent events to be put into a historical context.  Back in May, many of the more enflamed reactions have come from the white community, who for the most part are isolated from the realities of urban poverty, and thus, have no groundings in their own life to understand the constant pressures faced by people of color.  The past decades have seen a rise in neoliberal policies that have in short order shred the social safety net.  No social program is safe from the politics of austerity championed by both the Democrats and Republicans.  Public schools, welfare, and social security are all on the chopping block.  It is this movement, coupled with the already existing conditions of poverty, brought further emiseration to those residing in working class neighborhoods nationwide. 

On a recent trip to Washington D.C, I could feel revolution in the air. The discrepancies in income were visible even blocks apart. High-end grocery stores were less than a quarter of a mile from public housing, which created the appearance of a war zone. Barbed wire menacingly lined the walls of the façade surrounding these buildings. I was surprised at the lack of police presence at first sight. Instead, every building was watched by at least three private security guards. When police appeared, they appeared in full combat attire: flak jacket, helmet, and what seemed to be a semi-automatic rifle. It was obvious to me at the moment, that the only way to sustain such disparities in income was through this show of force. Only through the militarization of the police and the supplementation by private security can the tensions created by such a reality be eased. It is no surprise killings of young black men by white police officers has resonated such response public outcry across the nation. The riot is merely the means by which those living under these conditions have tried to make their voices heard. The protest is simply giving voice to the voiceless. 

To say that these movements have sprung up sporadically out of nothing ignores the historical currents in the last fifty years. With the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, some believed the work had been done, hence the idea of a post-racial America. Yet, as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. explained in a speech in 1967, “The gains in the first era of struggle were obtained from the power structure at bargain rates. It didn’t cost anything to integrate lunch counters.”  Further, “It didn’t cost the nation a penny to guarantee the right to vote. Now we are in a period where it will cost the nation billions of dollars to get rid of poverty—to get rid of slums, to make quality integrated education a reality. That is where we are now.”[2]  King made this prescription nearly sixty years ago, but for the most part it has been unheeded.  Instead, we are in much the same place we were in 1967. This desire to gain economic and social rights along with the legal rights the black community had gained through legal channels gave birth to the black power movement of late 1960s and 1970s. It was this frustration in the lack of progress through non-violence that gave rise to black-nationalist groups like the Black Panthers and their paramilitary the Black Liberation Army. These groups were brutally repressed by the Federal Government throughout that period and rendered irrelevant as a force for mass mobilization by the early 1980s. While conditions have only deteriorated in many respects for the black community in more recent decades, for the most part organized movements have been few and far between. Instead, there have been infrequent uprisings against the continued oppression of poverty. The 1992 riots, for example were in response to the beating of Rodney King by the LAPD.  This vicious act of violence was broadcast for the entire world to see, and brought condemnation from human rights groups. 

In American society, poverty and race often go hand, and people of color are often disproportionately affected by fluctuations. The recession of 2008 has served to heighten existing disparities in wealth and brought upon a spirit of questioning of the very institutions that many in American society hold so dear. Occupy Wall Street brought forward a new dialogue that questioned the very tenets of capitalism. Suddenly, the rhetoric of the 1% and 99% became part of the everyday vernacular of many Americans. While the movement itself has petered out, its legacy still remains.  Today, low-income service workers are organizing across the country for a living wage. With all of these issues, there is one elephant continuously in the room, and that is the authority of capital and the capitalist system. To question any income equality is to question the very legitimacy of the system itself, and this awakening of consciousness has certainly shown no signs of slowing. Those who feel the failings of this system the most are the ones living in urban centers across the nation—as  they are slowly pushed out by the processes of gentrification and outsourcing, as well as cuts to social programs meant to curb the worst abuses of poverty. 

Black and Hispanic communities who represent generally between 20% and 40% respectively of those living in poverty nationwide are disproportionately affected by this turn of events. This stands in stark contrast to the white communities, which represent 10% or less of those living at the poverty level. In the District of Columbia mentioned above, this difference is even more astounding.  The black community represents 36% of those living in poverty and the white community represents only 5%.[3]  The real level of these discrepancies is probably much higher, as these statistics are calculated using the U.S. Census Bureau’s definition of poverty, which is woefully inaccurate.  For instance, the poverty threshold given for a family of five in 2014 was 28,695 dollars.[4] Given these convergences of forces, it is almost as if American society has written off the plight of these communities in favor of the continued progress for the rest. It seems that American society has decided that black and brown lives do not matter. Is it surprising, then, that a new level of consciousness has arisen, in the wake of violence against young black men and women by police in urban areas? The protests that have emerged in response and that will likely continue to do so, represent the woeful cry of the unheard, who feel they have been reduced to the level of sub-humans. 

One of the most frequent criticisms of these riots has been the destruction of property. This phenomenon can be explained and justified on multiple levels. First, businesses represent part of the apparatus of oppression. They represent the process of gentrification and are viewed by members of those communities as the invading armies of an occupational force. These businesses are symbolic of the urban diaspora of black communities from their homes. The traditional inhabitants are being replaced by urban white professionals, who bring with them skyrocketing property values that are for the most part untenable for those living on one or two minimum-wage jobs. There is also the understandable disillusionment with the system that has failed these communities. These protests have let out the pent up rage and cynicism of the black community like a social safety valve. Instead of rushing to judge the victims, it is our duty to question the very system that has relegated the vulnerable community to poverty and misery despite the promises of the 1960s, a system that has not only allowed the failing of the compact that was made all of those decades ago, but has choked, shot in the back, and severed the spine of the very will of the people. For those not convinced of the role of violence in protest, I will leave you with words of Malcolm X, who pointed out the hypocrisy of those who denounce protest simply because it does not comply with their own non-violent model for social change:  

If violence is wrong in America, violence is wrong abroad. If it is wrong to be violent defending black women and black children and black babies and black men, then it is wrong for America to draft us, and make us violent abroad in defense of her. And if it is right for America to draft us, and teach us how to be violent in defense of her, then it is right for you and me to do whatever is necessary to defend our own people right here in this country.[5]

We as a people should all stand in solidarity with the oppressed people of this nation, from Ferguson to Baltimore, and decry the violence of the state.  

Blogger Bio:

Connor Harney, 24, is a second year graduate student in the History Department at Appalachian State University. His specialization is in Latin American History, in particular, the Cuban Revolution. After he finishes his Master’s at ASU, he hopes to attend UNC Chapel Hill and complete a dissertation on the role of ideological pragmatism and its relation to the continuation of the Cuban Revolution. When not engaged in coursework, he enjoys all things fitness related, binge watching Netflix, and reading social and economic theory. 

---

[1] Eric Hobsbawm, The Age of Extremes: A History of the World, 1914-1991, New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1994, pg. 3.

[2]Martin Luther King Jr., “Hungry Club Speech,” May 10^th, 1967, http://www.thekingcenter.org/archive/document/hungry-club-speech (accessed September 25, 2015), pg 3.

[3]The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, “Poverty Rate by Race/Ethnicity,” State Health Facts, http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-raceethnicity/ (accessed September 25, 2015).

[4] United States Census Bureau, “Poverty Thresholds,” Poverty, https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html (accessed September 30, 2015).

[5] Malcom X, “Message to the Grassroots,” October 1963,  http://genius.com/Malcolm-x-message-to-the-grassroots-annotated/ (accessed September 25, 2015).