Rowlandson’s contrasting portrayal of her Indian captors results from her changing perception of them throughout her time spent as a captive. Much like the average person, Rowlandson formed an opinion of the Indians based off of her culture, hearsay of others, and experiences that were not her own. As a southerner, one thing I’ve often heard is that no one thing can be all bad, it must also be at least partially good. This is precisely what Rowlandson learns throughout her captivity as she experiences the generosity and compassion of the Wampanoag tribe first hand. The result of this is that, over time, she begins to identify with her captors, viewing them less as "merciless heathen" and more as generous fellow sufferers. Furthermore, the fact that Rowlandson was a Puritan woman, which made her a second class citizen, advances her identity with the Wampanoag tribe, as they were seen as subhuman themselves.
Through Rowlandson’s eyes, the Indians were a scourge sent by God as punishment, though we do not know what she feels she is being punished for. In the beginning of the narrative, as the dogs are negligent to attack the Indians, she says, “The Lord hereby would make us more acknowledge His hand, and to see that our help is always in Him” (258). This truly illustrates the idea that the Indians were an instrumental test of faith, because it is noted that any other time, the dogs would have leaped at the attackers. This portrays a central idea to Puritanism: God rules over all. Puritans also believed in a human like God, so in the instance of the dogs, it is almost as if God himself were holding them by the leash, paralyzing their movement so that the Indians would succeed on their intrusion of Mary’s garrison. Time after time, Rowlandson references biblical stories in which she identifies with the character, potential evidence that the Indian raid did, in fact, strengthen her relationship with God as she was constantly pondering the Bible and the various testaments of faith that it carries within its chapters. In contrast, further into the narrative, Rowlandson began to attribute kindness to the Indians. This dissimilarity can be seen through her early referral to her captors as “barbarous creatures” and in saying that she would rather be killed than taken alive by them, while later, in the Nineteenth Remove, one of the tribe members is referenced to her as a “good friend.” This within itself not only addresses that over the course of her captivity, she began to form relationships with the Wampanoag’s, but also that the reservations about these people taught by her culture were slowly being stripped away the more that she interacted with them. In fact, when Philip is referenced as her friend, she is quick to defend him as a kind man, though the evidence that he had killed two people laid right in front of her eyes. As a member of a society that greatly resented the Indians, it is a very stark contrast to see Rowlandson plead for this man’s righteousness by presenting evidence that he and his wife had only ever showed kindness to her, often in the form of refreshing her (280). It is easy to accept what others say without any evidence, and sometimes, it is even harder to reverse these teachings when we have learned to value them. Early on, Rowlandson expresses anger at her hardship, but ultimately, by the end of her tribulation, she quotes Exodus 14:13, to express that she feels silly when being burdened by small troubles, because she had seen the goodness of God in a much larger situation, and just as He was faithful then, He would be in the mundane as well. Being thankful for her experience not only shifts her mentality of the Indians to grateful, but also leaves the lingering idea that the experience had a positive impact on her life, unlike what is expected.
The Indians were seen as savages by much of the Puritan society, and often thought to be subhuman entirely. They were made to feel as less than important, just as Rowlandson was, solely for the fact that she a woman. Ironically, it was the skills often possessed strictly by women that granted her a form of payment in the midst of her captivity. In the Eighth Remove, she crafts her first garment, a shirt for the son of Philip, the man that is referenced as her friend. She offered the money to her master, but he encouraged her to keep it, and even contracted her to make a hat for his own child. Her network of customers expanded from there, and she began to eat more heartily while settled in this particular remove, because for each clothing item, she was rewarded with items such as bear meat and peas (268). In the grand scheme of things, this small act of independence would probably be disapproved of by Puritan society, as women were often viewed as instruments of Satan, but, for the Indians, her works were, in a sense, a saving grace. Though small, this trait was greatly valued by the Indians as it proved to be beneficial to them, which prompted them to reward Rowlandson for her work, whereas in her Massachusetts home, it would probably be an expectation that reaped no incentive.
From Rowlandson’s ambivalence, the reader can conclude that no person(s) is any one thing. Human beings are complex creatures that can be both “good” and kind, to the same extent that they are “bad” and ruthless. To cast a fair judgement, one must formulate conclusions based on personal experience and truly analyze that experience to understand what it unveils about the individual facing judgement. Rowlandson’s ambivalence also reveals many lessons that she learned for herself throughout her time spent in captivity. Though she never explicitly expresses any sympathy towards the Indians, she see’s first hand their very low ability to meet basic survival needs such as food and water. Perhaps seeing this tragedy so closely put things into perspective, allowed her to step back from the Puritan ideas she had been taught, and forced her to recognize that these beings were people, not animals. As their sufferings became her own, she was made to realize that they were real. In the Eighteenth Remove, a squaw prepared boiled horses feet, and after Mary had eaten her own, she snatched another serving from a small child (277). This insight at desperation and starvation greatly enlightened Rowlandson and perhaps softened her heart towards the everyday lifestyle lived by this group, and maybe even required that she find their attacks validated, as they were only trying to retain their lands for survival. From this, the reader could conclude that Rowlandson not only began to understand and identify with her captors, but that she was driven to act barbarically in order to survive, just as she had witnessed the Indians do.
Though Rowlandson is very angry at the beginning of the novel, as she is still grieving the loss of her home and her loved ones, by the end, she has been compelled to feel both compassion for the Indians and their poor lifestyle. She also experiences the most ultimate form of empathy by living their trials for herself. Overall, it is no surprise that Rowlandson’s writings demonstrate such contrasting views of the Wompanoag people. As a strong person of religious faith, it is almost ironic that Rowlandson experiences such a revelation surrounding the people that held her captive for three months. Scourge or not, Rowlandson learned a very valuable lesson throughout her time spent with the Wompanoag tribe, best described by Criss Jami, “When I look at a person, I see a person – not a rank, not a class, not a title.”