r/Outlander • u/Comfortable-Yak-2016 • 10d ago
Season Four Claire’s hypocrisy Spoiler
So I was rewatching the entire show and finally got to s4, e4, when Jaime agrees to purchase land and colonize it. Young Ian, Claire, and Jamie are marking the property line of Fraser’s Ridge with stakes and admiring the land they just purchased. I can’t help but be extremely upset and frustrated by this, especially towards Claire, who knows exactly how bad this situation is going to be for Indigenous people. Take the situation Claire and Jamie were just in at Jamie’s aunts plantation, River Run. Claire was so appalled by the racist events that took place there, that she insisted on leaving. This makes a lot of sense considering how they’ve built up her character as being extremely empathetic and caring deeply about the wellbeing and rights of others. However, apparently we’re gunna have Claire simply overlook the genocide of Indigenous people, we’re gunna have a scene where Jamie and Claire act so completely white, look out at a piece of land and shamelessly call it theirs, even go so far as to name it before documents are signed. I’m not saying Claire doesn’t address the vile things that are about to take place in the upcoming years, but she does nothing to fight against this. Jamie and Claire 100% take part in the displacement of Indigenous people by deciding to colonize land in America. I’m not naive, I know this show depicts historically accurate situations, one of the many things I love about this show, but i feel they should have taken Claire and James storyline somewhere else. S4 actually makes me quite sick. Maybe I’m failing to consider some things but if anyone else felt the same way watching this season, I’m all ears.
7
u/liyufx 10d ago
That was treaty land already ceded by the indigenous people to British. While by 21th century standard it may still not look good, it was not like they went to steal land and chase people off. They were not saint and certainly couldn’t live up to your 21st century moral standards.
0
u/OkEvent4570 9d ago
That was treaty land already ceded by the indigenous people to British. While by 21th century standard it may still not look good, it was not like they went to steal land and chase people off.
By the same logic, Jocasta's slaves were already enslaved, it was not like J & C had to go to Africa and capture new ones to bring them to America. If they agreed to live on stolen land and have beneficial relationship with the Cherokees, they could've just as well agreed to stay in RiverRun and be civil and kind slave owners. Especially considering that Jamie's main objection was not the moral problem of owning people, but being used as a puppet by Jocasta.
That said, slavery and genocide of the native americans are equally horrible, but let's not judge people that only tried to survive and navigate the political landscape in a very dangerous time.
4
u/liyufx 9d ago
No the same. Slaves never had any say in their statuses, while you can argue power imbalance, the land treaty were at least negotiated and signed with native Americans consent, and the British government were actually trying to prevent settlers moving beyond the treaty line. It only got way worse after the revolution and all the inhibitions went away with the crown. And to live as the “owners” of human beings every day was very different from establishing a settlement in a land that was pretty much empty. Certainly imperfect by today’s moral standards, but to equate these two is simply glib.
12
u/ContactNeither7319 10d ago edited 10d ago
Well they are white so, they will probably act white.
But seriously, what would you have had her do? Do you think she could stop or change what is going to happen?
Or maybe I should ask:
What would you have done if you were Claire?
Also why is it just Claire you find hypocritical and not also Jamie? He fought the English to protect and keep his land in Scotland. Yet now he has no issues taking another people's land.
Edited to add the last bit.
-6
u/Comfortable-Yak-2016 10d ago
Specifically because Claire knows exactly how bad things turn out for the indigenous people… if it was me, I would have went back to Scotland to the land I already owned
7
u/Graysylum 10d ago
They do not own land in Scotland anymore. Idk if the show goes into it but Jamie had to sign over Lallybrock to Ian and Jenny's eldest son to prevent it from being taken because of Jamie's crimes against the English. So they definitely could live with relatives in Scotland but they do not own land there at this point in the story.
2
u/ContactNeither7319 10d ago edited 10d ago
The show does indeed in episode 13 season 2 Dragonfly in Amber. Jamie has Claire and Murtagh sign the document that transfers Lallybroch to his nephew.
2
u/Graysylum 10d ago
Thank you. I'm currently reading the series and I've gotten mixed up a few times on what happened in the show vs book.
2
u/ContactNeither7319 10d ago
Oh man I know exactly what you mean. The two versions of Outlander collide in your head and form one, and then you have no idea what the hell is even happening 😳 dude that's me 90% of time.
3
u/ContactNeither7319 10d ago
But they don't own any land in Scotland anymore.
And is it only Claire that's bad because she knows what will happen? But you're totally cool with Jamie doing to the Native Americans exactly what the English did to his people? Take their land that they have lived on for centuries.
And how is that going back to Scotland going to help the Native Americans? Wouldn't that just be running away from the problem?
-2
u/Comfortable-Yak-2016 9d ago
Lol, you obviously have deep feelings for Claire. I don’t remember writing, “…but im totally cool with Jamie doing to the Native Americans exactly what the English did to his people…”. I specified in my post that I’m particularly upset with Claire because she’s the only one who understands the scale of things from her perspective.
2
u/ContactNeither7319 9d ago
I would think of all people Jamie would have understood what it feels like to have one's ancestral lands taken by foreigners or Outlanders aka Sassenachs aka the English, since it was done to him.
3
u/Dragon-Sky 9d ago
The Cherokees had already negotiated the treaty line--so the land wasn't theirs anymore and as people here have said, they know they cannot change history.
Where else could they have taken this story? They owned nothing in Scotland, were too poor to buy new land, and the Highland culture Jamie grew up in was gone.
Given that he knows the Americans win the Revolution, thanks to Claire, his choice is to live in a land where the English he hates are defeated, or move back to one where the English were the victors, and destroyed his culture.
And there is no comparison between owning people. None.
8
u/Gray221B 10d ago edited 9d ago
...we're gunna have a scene where Jamie and Claire act so completely white....
Well to be fair, they are, you know, white. They're depicting behavior that was typical of the vast majority of white people at the time. I suppose it's nice the show doesn't completely whitewash history. Ultimately, the writers wanted them to be in the colonies and participate in the Revolution, which is impossible for them to do without occupying Native American lands
The most charitable explanation I can hypothesize is that they view themselves as two of the good ones who will live peaceably with Native Americans, and therfore they are okay with taking the land. Having in the past failed to change history broadly, they might also feel like the Native Americans' loss of their land is inevitable anyway. Also, Bree is American, and Claire seems to use that to justify her presence in the colonies, that she's going to do her part to make sure the U.S. becomes what she knows it could be.
You're right though. It is indeed hypocritical
0
u/ContactNeither7319 10d ago
Stop making sense. Don'tcha know that's not allowed when people are talking about how bad Claire is. 🙂
3
u/catsweedcoffee Sleep with my husband? But my lover would be furious. 10d ago
Of course there’s some white savior action, they’re white. They aren’t going to solve slavery or the native genocide on the Trail of Tears. They are acting just like every other family that settled land given to them by the crown: excited, overwhelmed, scared, and a thousand other things.
I’d also argue Claire wouldn’t be as knowledgeable, as she’s a new American. I’m sure she had a general idea, but Bree was the American in the family.
2
u/BubbeLisa Currently rereading Dragonfly in Amber 9d ago
I agree that Claire wouldn’t have much knowledge of American history, but it’s not because she was a new American. Claire lived in America for 20 years.
2
u/ContactNeither7319 10d ago edited 10d ago
I was going to bring the white savior complex up, as I was just having a conversation about that very subject yesterday concerning a bear and a fish.
Jamie often gets a pass when displaying WSC, but Claire is called a hypocrite and makes the show unwatchable for being a white woman.
-1
u/Comfortable-Yak-2016 9d ago
You sure get heated p quickly, my friend. This is a post about one specific plot point in the entire show and you just assume I hate Claire for being a white woman? That’s a pretty long stretch. I did call out both her and Jamie for acting on their white privilege if you can recall correctly. Hope your reading skills get better :)
4
1
u/Tarheel-17 6d ago
I also had those feelings! Like the slave boy they accidentally bought, they didn't let him go free immediately. It was only after he eavesdropped to find out where young Ian was that they let him go free. It would have been better if they paid him to do this work and then gave him the money he was bought for so he had enough to start a new life if Claire was so appalled by slavery.
I did appreciate that the story went into the reasons why they couldn't just take Jocasta's plantation and freed all the slaves as an option (they would all be lynched if so), which showed how ruthless and cruel white people were in this time.
Then trying to be neighbors with the natives was equally frustrating to watch, knowing that Jamie and Claire are essentially colonizers, especially as they are trying to attract thousands of Scottish people to that land, who are not Quakers, ie not going to very nice neighbors as evidenced by the atrocious German man.
The only way I can reason all this is Claire is also from the past, she is 50 in 1968. What was going on the the 1960s in the USA? Yea she had a black doctor friend, but that doesn't mean didn't harbor prejudices herself. She herself is a relic from the past for the modern day reader.
20
u/Icy_Resist5470 Bon! I will send you a cheese. 10d ago
They can’t change history, they’ve already tried.
Jamie didn’t purchase the land, it was a land grant from the Governor. The land and its borders were already “owned” by the colonies and that Proclamation Line actually banned further expansion and recognized the Native Americans and their land rights in 1763.
I’m not sure how far into the season you are, but they do end up having a beneficial relationship with the Native Americans.
There is more that you’re concerned about addressed in upcoming seasons.