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.
No comments:
Post a Comment