This page is referenced by:

• 1 2024-03-27T16:12:26-07:00 Pacific Pasts: Neah Bay Watercolor by Emma Feldman 2 The watercolor highlights the importance of one’s culture: through a collective enviroment. plain 2024-03-27T17:21:54-07:00 1/1/1862 48.369139, -124.624278
  
  The watercolor by James Swan of Biʔidʔa Village, 1862 of Neah Bay highlights a group of indigenous people called the Makahs with their welcoming community and their multifaceted interaction with outsiders, who were the American and European colonists that would come to trade with them. The watercolor highlights the importance of one’s culture, in this case, it would be a sense of normalcy. We can see the culture of the indigenous through the cleanliness of their environment, their buildings and how the island is composed of itself. It appears to be a well-functioning, civilized island, and the watercolor showcases the positives and negatives to its environment. The positives in this watercolor indicate a healthy environment which looks peaceful and the people of the island seem to be content with their everyday lives; they have set routines and traditions. The negative includes foreshadowing that a change is coming, as the painter who made the watercolor is not of native descent, but a colonist one, he is an outsider who doesn’t know a single soul or ideal of the Makahs.
  To me, the perspective of this watercolor is to emphasize the importance of the indigenous. We should not be erasing their history, as we had been doing in the 20th century, which is why I think this painting is extremely relevant currently. The showcase of the breathtaking view of greenery, ocean and mountains, is something I find extremely intriguing. As I only get to experience mountains where I am from, I am in awe of the Pacific. I would be an outsider like the colonizers, but one who would appreciate the beauty of the Pacific and not use it for harmful reasons, but I would still be an outsider no matter what. I cannot travel to the past, but I believe the present can reflect the past. We should be continuing to learn more about Pacific history even if it happens to be through a watercolor. Joshua Reid, the author of where the watercolor is featured also writes from a perspective in support of the Makah indigenous folk. He beckons to those who don’t know anything about Pacific History, to urgently learn it, he claims we should be urgently learning about Neah Bay rather than the colonist side of the patriarchy which is capitalism. David A. Chang highlights a similar but different perspective to mine and Reid’s as well, he writes that the indigenous people of the Pacific in general, not just one group should be treated as explorers themselves, and unlike the objects that they were made out to be during the exploitation and trading process taken from the islands themselves which is the impending doom that the Makahs will experience I feel coming from the Watercolor.
  In the past, people would use these islands just for trades, their own personal benefit, or economic benefit. It wasn't necessarily for fun and enjoyment yet like we see today within the Pacific beaches. In the present, it is more of a tourist capitalist ideal still with a sense of some enjoyment. Natives to the islands don’t want tourists to visit their islands anymore for the safety of their people and the waters even though they heavily rely on the outside environment rather than in the past where they didn’t need any involvement whatsoever to survive. The U.S, and other countries following in the past, exploited the land's resources just like in the 20th century but for a different type of trade, the tourism trap and exploitation of the locals and their land for outsiders fun summer on the beach or in the mountains.
  The importance of this painting being a water color can cultivate a contradictory narrative. The narrative on one hand is depicting potential exploitation of the people who live there, while on the other hand it is showcasing their love for their land. The watercolor to me, seems to represent two perspectives. It highlights the perspective of the colonists, the image seems to be treated as one to “sell” to other nations, meaning the colonists are only thinking about profit and how to exploit the Pacific, and on the other hand of the Pacific, they are finally being shown to the outside world and the Islanders seem to be at peace with each other and one with nature.
  In this painting, we can see visuals of greenery such as trees and mountains, the ocean, and Islanders by their possible homes. The greenery in this scene illustrates to me how they care for their environment, it is untouched by exploitation and looks gorgeous, as the native Pacific Islanders cared a lot about their island and weren’t worried about trading or expanding, they just focused on survival for themselves and their own community and to respect the nature around them. To me, it seems that the United States in the 20th century just focused on expansion of their newly formed nation, they didn’t care about anyone who lived there and this wasn’t just in the Pacific, it was the West as well. I know this was in the case for survival, but I think the United States could have incorporated a better tactic for inclusion and not have driven indigenous peoples from their land. I mainly only know Western history, specifically Colorado history, and how colonists drove out Colorado’s own indigenous people, but I have a feeling this painting was the start of the downfall for the Pacific indigenous just as the Manifest Destiny painting was for Western indigenous folk.
  The boats in this painting also can depict a sense of survival for both parties. It seems to be used as survival for Natives to thrive in their own territory, and survival for Colonists once they officially arrive by ship for survival against other countries to make themselves known. Boats at the time were heavily relied on for trade, Colonists used these to come to the Islands, for trade with other countries and also to fend themselves against the Natives if they were to rebel. The perspective of Reid claimed that Europeans and Americans saw the ocean as a boundary which separated one colonial space from another, Makahs and other indigenous borderlands continued to experience their water as a space for connections, pre-existing indigenous networks of trade, kinship, and violence endured instead (The Sea is My Country Chapter 4). I believe his perspective directly is shown within this watercolor, we can see how close knit the community of the Makahs happened to be, the boats and huts themselves were close knit. There is no reference of the colonists in the painting itself, just that James Swan is the colonist who made the painting. We can’t see if colonialism even had an impact on the island yet. Reid claims during this time that colonists were treating the indigenous as property, since James Swan is possibly spying on them as an outsider by making this painting. The perspective of Chang would agree to disagree with Reid. He would believe that the community was a close knit one, but some indigenous groups were focused on building a connection with the outsiders and they were curious of other worlds apart from their own, which differs from Reid. I believe in both of their perspectives, I believe the Natives didn’t like or dislike the 20th century United States people, they just happened to be curious of why they wanted to explore their territory, and they may have been curious themselves to the differences in cultures, language, and environment that the Europeans and Americans came from.
  Overall, the oil painting by James Swan gives good insight into the 20th century belief of the Pacific. We are getting a sense of longing that is for the colonists to explore a new land, they are unfamiliar with the culture surrounding the Makahs or any indigenous folk and are curious but not for the right reasons. The belief of the Pacific in the 20th century was one purely of curiosity, Americans and Europeans may believe they each can get a claim of territory, it is almost a sense of selfishness over anything, but in order to survive as a nation there had to be some type of sacrifice given, which just happened to be the sake of the indigenous people and their own cultures versus the adaptations of the new colonizers.
  The argument by Joshua Reid and David A Chang both are inclusive to keeping the empowerment of indigenous culture alive and keep those who are in the dark, aware about the Pacific voices who should be heard, which I believe is the most impactful part of the recollection to the past. Although this water color can be an interpretation of both positives and negatives of Colonialism in the Pacific Islands, I intend to to become knowledgeable and welcome the history of the Pacific rather than the history I have only been taught which is nowhere near the Pacific and wouldn’t be able to come close to the understanding of their environment and happiness.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  References
  
  CHANG, D. A. (2016). The World and All the Things upon It: Native Hawaiian Geographies of Exploration. University of Minnesota Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.ctt1c2crj3
  
  REID, L. Joshua (2015). The Sea is My Country: The Maritime World of The Makahs. Yale University Press.
  
  “Baada Village. Baada Point, or Bahada Pt., Neah Bay.” watercolor, 17.8 x 25.1 cm. Yale University Library. (n.d.). https://collections.library.yale.edu/catalog/2003190