Questions to Consider about Mayflower by Nathaniel Philbrick (Part 2 or 2)

8. Compare Philbrick's portrayls of natives in Mayflower with the ways in which they have been represented in pop culture. How does Mayflower encourage us to rethink those representations? Are there some popular images of Native Americans that seem to be somewhat rooted in what actually happened in the seventeenth century?
There were a lot of similarities between the Natives in the book and Natives portrayed in pop culture today. When we think of Native Americans, we think of two kinds of tribes: warring and peaceful. The tribes of New England had tribes of each. The Mohawks were a tribe large with war and smaller tribes were very peaceful. Also, Native American cultures of spirit and dancing were portrayed in the book and in movies. However, the natives in the book seemed more accepting of the English God than how I cam to know them before. Mayflower gives us an in depth understanding about certain tribes and their methods unlike when I previously thought they all had similar concepts. It could have very been possible that popular images were rooted in Native tribes in New England because of the Native ideas of being spiritual.

9. In the chaotic and atrocity filled conflict known as King Phillip's war, does anyone emerge as heroic? If so, what made them a hero?
Benjamen Church of Plymouth emerged as the hero because of his confident swagger and good military skills that were effective enough to defeat the Pokanoket Sachem. People were afraid of Phillip, especially when he joined forces with powerful tribes, but Church acted as though it was no problem.

10. As Mayflower shows, the Native American tribes of New England were not monolith, culturally or politically. However, the English were not consistantly able to think of them as separate tribes with different loyalties and desires. How did mosconceptions of racial identity complicate the politics of King Phillip's War?
The tribes the Phillip allied with did have different goals and different reasons. This led to complications because what would have happened if Church and the English lost? Each tribe had to get what they wanted. Some of the goals targeted the English. Tribes were either fighting for power, death to the English, or wampums.

11. During King Phillip's war, significant numbers of Native Americans sided with the Enlgish. How do you regard those who took up arms against their fellow natives? Do you see them as treacherous, opportunistic, or sensible? If you were a native, which side would you take and why?
The natives who took up sides had good ideas. Some tribes like the Awashonks were made a sensible offer by the English. Others just had a rival tribe fighting against the English. The tribes that have proven themselves will prove to be sensible. The tribes that are good at war and are friendly is sensible and opportunistic. The Narragansetts? Treacherous and stupid. If I was a Native, I would have sided against the English if the Natives were my friends because it is our land. However, if other tribes were mean to us, then I'd side with the English, pending on their loyalty to us.

12. Philbrick shows that the English engaged in barbaric practices (like the natives) such as torturing the captives as well as taking their possessions. Could either side in King Phillip's War made any legitimate claim to moral superiority?
This is where I think that the New England Puritans became very cocky. In the Mayflower on the page before chapter one, there was a picture of a native with a flag reading 'come help us'. This was Puritan art and what they believed of how superior they were to others. Since they believed in different Gods, they believed that they had the divine right over the enemy. Therefore, they did this. The answer is no. Just because one is at war, they have no right to treat hostages like they did. This was what the first generation Pilgrims were afraid of. In a previous attempt to convince the natives that the English were not bad people, the second generation acted like gangbusters and imposed their selfish will on innocent natives. That is pushing it.

15. One reviewer asserted that Philbrick avoided moral issues and took no sides. Do you find this to be true? any moral lessons Philbrick wants us to know?
I agree with the critic. Even though he gave some adjectives to describe the English or the natives, he made this novel as factual as can be. How he told this story was only there to give us the truth of the relationship between the Pilgrims and the Natives. He didn't have a significant moral that he gave out directly, but the obvious indirect moral would be to learn from the past and use it for judgements of the future. There are plenty we can take away that is good and bad of the Pilgrims and work towards a better future. His tale is like any historical tale because it has the same objective.

Questions to Consider about Mayflower by Nathaniel Philbrick (Part 1 of 2)

1. What beliefs and character traits that typified the Pilgrims enabled them to survive in the hostile enviornment that greeted them in the new world? Did some limit?
Words to describe the Puritans were very disciplined and very faithful. Their discipline extended to limited dancing and no shows. There was little margin or error and goofing off would not be tolerated. In the new world, goofing off would fail these Pilgrims and discipline held them together. They stayed calm in the hardest of conditions and were focused on building a successful settlement. Their faith saved them. They could have easily given up but they believed they were there to do God's word and that he does everything for a reason. The limitations were that they were English. The English have had a poor reputation with the English thanks to Thomas Hunt, a man who captured and enslaved the Indians. Regardless if there are peaceful Englishmen, there will always be the Natives who wanted to take revenge any way they could and that was portrayed by a few tribes like the Naragansetts.

3. Why has America forsaken the truth about these times in exchange for a misleading and often hokey mythology?
For thanksgiving and how it was celebrated, the written evidence describing the event was not accurate and overtime, that has caused Americans to extract new ideas about what happened during thanksgiving. Also, the mythology of thanksgiving really has established a prosperous tradition of the meal and being thankful for what one has. So, a reason was to give people a reason to establish a holiday and a tradition. Another reason was that time has passed and people would have had their facts straight if an event like this happened 50 years ago as opposed to 400 years.

4. The Pilgrims established a tradition of more or less peaceful coexistence with the Native Americans that lasted over fifty years. Why did that tradition collapse in the 1670s and what might have been done to retain it?
What maintained peace between the Pilgrims and the Pokanoket Indians was that there was an agreement reached in Plymouth. There were six guidelines: a pilgrim can't injure a pokanoket and vice versa, the offender if commiting harm should be punished by the offended community or tribe, if a tool was stolen when at work it must be restored, the unjust will not be defended by their people, peace with all neighbors, and when visiting, leave weapons behind. Governors Carver and Bradford did an outstanding job with Massasoit (Pokanoket sachem) to keep this in check for fifty years. It collapsed when Josiah Winslow and Alexander took leaders of Pilgrims and the Pokanoket tribe respectively. Tensions between them arose causing to the murder of Alexander, starting off years of blood.


5. How did the strengths and weaknesses of Squanto and his personality end up changing history and why did one man make such a difference?
Squanto was a slave to English explorer Thomas Dermer. Under Dermer, he was able to learn English. Later, his master was killed, but Squanto at this time understood the ways of the Englishmen. He was tolerant of the Pilgrims and saw the good in him like he saw in everyone. He became friends with the Pilgrims and instructed them the land. His weaknesses were that he didn't have enough power among the tribes because the Pilgrims would have been well respected among the Natives if he was. He made a huge difference because he introduced the Natives to other people where the Pilgrims were able to form alliances. Without him, the Pilgrims would have become vulnerable and wouln't make it far enough for New England to prosper.


6. The Children of the Pilgrims were regarded in their own time as unworthy of the legacy and sacrifices of their parents. Why did they acquire this reputation? Was it deserved and were the denunciations of the second generation a kind of self fulfilling prophesy?
They acquired this reputation because they were American born and did not endure the sacrifices needed to make a harsh voyage away from the persecutions of the King James. The first generation endured the hardships of getting to know the land and construct the settlement so the second generation could live easier. If I was in their shoes, I would call them lucky but not unfortunate so at first, it wasn't deserving. However, what was thought of them was true because all the peace treaties and respect earned by the first generation was broken by the second generation. This new generation attacked the Indians and therefore, attacked the agreement made the the Pilgrims and the Pokanokets. Their actions made them deserving to recieve the title 'unworthy'.

Book: MAYFLOWER by Nathaniel Philbrick