Strong and Pike Readings

Both Pike’s Wild People in Wild Lands and Strong’s The Anglo Saxons and the World’s Future make very bold statements and claims. In Wild People in Wild Lands, Pike first introduces his work by stating that people use stereotypes to describe people that are unknown or foreign to them. He goes on to say that stereotypes and evilness are not unique or original. One quote that stuck with me was “differences in a population are often greater than differences between populations.” In this quote, Pike was trying to get across the point that there is much diversity inside of a population, and this diversity may be even greater than that population compared to another. Then, Pike goes on to discuss relations between the United States and Latin America. He claims that Anglos stripped Latin Americans of identity and by doing so “sank” to the level of Latin Americans. Pike also states that the view of Latin Americans around this time was negative- they were seen as savage and inferior compared to Anglos. Pike claims that they were seen this way because of the lack of modesty and sexual repression when compared to Anglos- whites were disgusted by Latin American nudity and saw sexual desire as something that made one weaker and more barbaric. I think that the main reason Anglos labeled Latin Americans as barbaric and uncivilized was because of the fact that they were different from them. When there are numerous differences between cultures people are unsure how to react because those differences confuse them. In The Anglo Saxons and the World’s Future, Strong claims that the Anglo Saxons should rightfully be their “brother’s keeper” when it comes to the rest of the world. Pike supports this argument by claiming that Anglo Saxons are the best representatives of the two themes responsible for making the world a better place: civil liberty and spiritual Christianity. Pike also claims that the increase in Anglo population when compared to the rest of the world shows that God is backing the Anglo Saxon race to be at the helm of the world. I think that both of these pieces are extremely and unfairly pro-Anglo and the support that each author presents is ludicrous and absurd.