1. What beliefs and character traits that typified the Pilgrims enabled them to survive in the hostile environment that greeted them in the New World? Did some of the same traits that helped them survive limit them in other ways? How so?
The greatest
factor that enabled the Pilgrims to survive in the New World was the strong bond that they shared through their faith. Motivation came from that close bond and from the faith itself, as the Pilgrims were willing to work hard for each other and to prove that they were among the elect. The Pilgrims were also trusting, which helped them gain a strong early bond with the Natives. However, this trust cost them time and money early on in their journey, and got them into a tough financial situation with the Adventurers Club.
3. Philbrick shows us that many of the classic images that shape our current view of the Pilgrims—from Plymouth Rock to the usual iconography of the first Thanksgiving—have been highly fictionalized. Why has America forsaken the truth about these times in exchange for a misleading and often somewhat hokey mythology?
No one likes to look back on their wrongful doings of the past. It is often painful and embarrassing. The same goes for a country. The Pilgrims were the among the first to English to successfully settle in the New World. That would be something America would want to celebrate, if it weren't for some of the wrongful actions of the Pilgrims. However, celebration usually takes priority over grieving and apologies, and the more complimentary truth of Pilgrims exploits became the popular and exaggerated truth.
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 preserve it?
Successful trade between the Native Americans and the Pilgrims existed for a number of years. As the Natives ran out of things to trade with the Pilgrims, and as the Pilgrims began to expand, the Natives began to trade their land away. This started out slowly, but soon massive areas of land were being given to the Pilgrims for very small prices. When the Indians decided that this had to stop, Bradford and Massasoit, two great leaders, were dead, and their replacements were less willing to a diplomatic approach to the solution. This could have been prevented by the pilgrims putting a check on their greed and by Indian traders being more careful with their land.
5. Discuss the character of Squanto. How did the strengths and weaknesses of his personality end up influencing history, and why did this one man make such a difference?
Squanto was lucky to be able to learn English language and culture and then be able to return home. After being taken as a slave by his fellow Indians, he got lucky once more when the Pilgrims arrived and he proved useful as a translator. His experiences on both sides (English and Indian) allowed him to become a trusted source of information of one party to the other. His greed got the better of him, though, and although he had a brilliant plan to make himself sachem by turning the two parties against each other using paranoia, luck and chance, which had been so faithful to him on previous occasions (which he perhaps started to depend on), got in the way. Squanto, who was on the brink of single-handedly starting a war, revolution, and coup, was discovered as a trecherous schemer.
6. The children of the Pilgrims were regarded in their own time as “the degenerate plant of a strange vine,” unworthy of the legacy and sacrifices of their mothers and fathers (p. 198). Why did they acquire (and largely accept) this reputation? Was it deserved? Were the denunciations of the second generation a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy?
The first generation of pilgrims went through many hardships and trials before they even reached the New World, where they were awaited by more challenges, such as building a settlement and maintaining relations with the Indians. Although by no means spoiled, the Pilgrims' children grew up to a life many of these challenges having been already faced and possibly seeming easy to maintain. The Pilgrims may have recognized this and worried that their children may not have been able to maintain the success of the settlement. As the children grew and began to run the settlement, they began to take advantage of the Indians and let their greed get the better of them, which would lead to the outbreak of war. It might have been the first generation's fear and worry of their successors that led to their relative failure. Perhaps this worry caused the original Pilgrims to stay in control as long as possible, since they knew how to run things, without completely passing on their methods.
8. Compare Philbrick’s portrayals of natives in Mayflower with the ways in which they have been represented in popular culture, for instance, in Hollywood movies. How does
Mayflower encourage us to rethink those representations? On the other hand, are there some popular images of Native Americans that seem to be somewhat rooted in what actually happened in the seventeenth century?
While my knowledge on popular depictions of Native Americans is extremely limited (I'm not even sure I could describe to someone what happens in Pochahontas), and what little I have seen in movies and television are more modern and respectful depicitons of Native Americans or stereotypes of modern day Native Americans who apparently run casinos, the way these questions are asked assume I have seen movies where Indians are represented as scalping savages (not that I doubt their existence, I just haven't seen any movies about Indians). Also, I know such depictions of Indians as " the bad guys" exist.
Anyways, onto the questions. Philbrick's portrayals of natives show that they are not simply flat characters who want nothing more than the destruction of the pilgrims. They originally wanted peace with the Pilgrims (and many tribes always did) and were eager to trade. Philbrick's portryal also shows that some popular images may be rooted in the truth, too. For instance, there are stereotypes of Indians being supersticious or having far less sceintific knowledge than the Pilgrims, which is supported when Philbrick writes how Squanto was able to convince the other Native Americans that the Pilgrims were able to control the Plague.
9. In the chaotic, atrocity-filled conflict known as King Philip’s War, does anyone emerge as heroic? If so, what are the actions and qualities that identify him or her as a hero?
While I can't say I find anything involved in the war to be something to be looked up to, I do admire Church's attempts to put a quick end to the war and the sachems that tried to remain out of the war to keep their people safe.
10. As
Mayflower shows, the American Indian tribes of New England were not a monolith, either culturally or politically. However, the English were not consistently able to think of them as separate tribes with different loyalties and desires. How did misconceptions of racial identity complicate the politics of King Philip’s War?
The English did not mentally seperate the native tribes and their different goals, and this led to numerous complications. For instance, when King Philip's War began, the English had an easy victory beofre them. However, seeing the Indians as one entity, some English went and attacked the Naragansetts, a large force the planned on staying out of the war. This attack caused the Naragansetts to enter the war, which significantly added to the causualties and duration of the war.
11. During King Philip’s War, significant numbers of Native Americans sided with the English. How do you regard those who took up arms against their fellow natives? Do you see them as treacherous, opportunistic, or merely sensible? If you had been a native, which side would you have taken, and why?
As stated in the previous question, the tribes were seperated and had different goals and cultural differences. So if a tribe were to fight another tribe, it should not be considered betrayal. Although the sachems should've kept their people out war, sometimes fighting was neccessary for their safety, in which case fighting was sensible. If I had been a native, I would have tried to saty out of the fighting, but it that was not an option, my alligence would vary at different points of the war. For instance, when the war began, I would side with the English, but when the Narageansetts joined, I would side with the natives. Sure, it may seem wrong and weak to side with whoever's winning, but I don't believe either side had a particularly good cause, and like I said, I would avoid fighting if i could.
12. Philbrick shows that the English, as well as the American Indians, engaged in barbaric practices like torturing and mutilating their captives, as well as taking body parts as souvenirs. Could either side in King Philip’s War make any legitimate claim to moral superiority? Why or why not?
This question is pretty simple. No side was more moral than the other. Both committed unspeakable acts of violence which should have never occurred. It doesn't matter who started it or who killed however many people. Both sides continued the violence for an unneccessary amount of time.
15. One reviewer of
Mayflower asserted that Nathaniel Philbrick “avoid[ed] the overarching moral issues [of his subject] and [took] no sides.” Do you find this to be true? Are there moral lessons Philbrick wants us to learn? If so, what are they?
I'm not sure if Philbrick avoided moral criticisms, but he criticized both sides, and he never did take a side or condemn one party more than the other. As for moral lessons, I don't know that Philbrick went out of his way to point any out, but simply by stating what happened, lessons can be learned, such as toleration, open-mindedness, humility, and that racism, stealing, murder, torture, and greed are all wrong. Almost all basic ethical lessons can be learned from the story of the PIlgims.
This one is pretty straight forward. "Help!" the people of Boston cry, as they have been caged by the British troops. Mom found out about all that tea partying, and she is not happy. Thus, Boston has been grounded. No public document burnings for a week. And just wait until your father gets home.
There's actually a debate over who shot first? It seems to be made pretty clear, here! And Americans wouldn't lie. Washington forbid it through his wooden teeth.
Thomas Paine, the famous pamphleteer. His publishing of The Crisis and Common Sense influenced the Loyalist James Chalmers to publish a competing pamphlet Plain Truth. Eventually. this turned into a "pamphlet war", the likes of which have never been seen sense. In fact, thousands lost their lives in the war, which is commonly known as the American Revolution. Contrary to popular belief, the war was over pamphlets, and American independence was just a bizarre side-effect.
This is really not saying a whole lot. God's hand is lifting Massachusetts into place along with the other states that had already ratified the Constitution. So, Massachusetts ratified the Constitution. That's about it. This is a bit after the Revolutionary War, of course.
While Lord North proclaims a British victory, America sits below weeping, and, well, in the dumps. This was a hard time for America, having just declared their independence but not yet receiving significant foreign aid. The British had every right to boast, as this was a bleak time for Patriots.
Now this one is pretty complicated. The horse, believe it or not, represents America. Crazy, right? It was sneaky tactics like transforming from colonies to a crying naked lady in Britain to a bucking horse that won the war for America.
