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 Pilgrims had some brains between them, to say the least. When they arrived to the New World, they basically knew from the outset that they were not alone and had to tread careful waters. They did what they had to, however. Yes, the pilgrims were very religious in the beginning and it did serve as a common connection between the Indians once some of them started converting. However, their religious traits also led the pilgrims to worry a little to much about religion and not enough about protection. While they built a church house, a wall (which was later constructed) could have been built! The first encounter could have been less deadly. However, because of the religious attitudes, the Pilgrims practiced Restitution, which certainly gained favor with the Indians. This was a tremendous help.
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?
Everybody loves a good, heartwarming story. Wouldn't you like to think that your ancestors immediately became friends with the Indians? That nobody died and the first few years of America were filled with happiness and prosperity? Of course. Nobody wants to think that the Pilgrims struggled and were nearly wiped out. Nobody likes to think that we initially fought with the Indians. The truth is that everybody wants to believe in some random event about their past. Nobody can deny this. The real story, which I think is cooler, is less appealing to 2nd and 3rd grade teachers. You can't tell a little kid that "well yeah, almost everybody died." that would horrify them. That is why we have the mythology today. People believe simply because that is what was taught to them.
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?
No peace is forever. Relations will become strained. Think, if you will, as 1670 North America as a typical Teenage High School. For the sake of the argument, we'll call it Fort Nico High School. Home of the fighting NICO'S! Now in this high school, there are two groups. The Indians and the British (and sure, we'll throw the French in there as well.) Now, as classes progress some new faces join the fray. The original members of Plymouth start to move on. The new members have somewhat of a different outlook. More colonies start to appear. Now the little town of Plymouth has to try to hold their relationship while other Englishmen are messing it up. The new residents of Plymouth wanted more land. and would do anything to have it. They thought themselves better than the Indians and really didn't care much for them. Rumors start to spread among the cliques. None of them trust each other, however the agreement still stands. Eventually, relations fall so poorly that war breaks out all because the New colonists forgot who they once were and what they stood for. Now the Principal has to discipline, and that's ME!
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?
Oh Squanto, that conniving little man. Squanto had one big advantage that none of the other Indians had. He was the best English-speaking native that the Pilgrims encountered. He could use this power to whatever way he wanted. And he wanted power. Squanto was extremely greedy and wanted to overthrow Massanoit. However, Squanto did this in a very sneaky way. He made the Pilgrims trust him. He taught them lots on how the Indians did their Agriculture. He was basically the link between the Pilgrims and the Pokanoats. He is the reason that the Pilgrims weren't annihilated. His friendliness helped America and influenced history. However, his own power hunger made things much more difficult. Almost leading to all out war (even though this did occur). Squanto made such a difference because he allowed the Pilgrims to flourish and gave them an alliance as well as proving useful when it came to translating.
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 2nd Generation pilgrims undid all that the first generation hoped to achieve. They deserve to be hung! They acquired this reputation because they were not thankful as their fathers were. They thought the Indians as lesser and therefore the relationship got strained. They only wanted land and would do anything to get it, including cheating the Indians out of it. They were too greedy and not religiously oriented enough as they're forefathers were. Of course they accepted it. Who wouldn't accept a view that makes them better than another group!? They deserved that legacy. Their fathers were better. It pretty much was a self-fulfilling prophecy. As people started to call them that, they got an even bigger head. As they're "head" got bigger, they started believing more and more that it was true and it just got worse and worse. Sigh...if only they were a good branch...
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?
Philbrick portrays natives with some respect. is are accurate. Not all Indians were running around with a tiny little loincloth around the (privates) like Hollywood portrays. Sure, many of them did when they first landed, but they took on some British clothing and were not completely naked. Hollywood also portrays them as running around with nothing but spears. Natives got guns after a bit. Philbrick portrays it that way. Philbrick's book makes me certainly rethink how Natives are portrayed. But, as I have pointed out, they did run around with arrows like hollywood portrays so some of those images are in fact accurate. Although, there was no gambling in the book, as Hollywood just loves to portray in countless numbers of movies. The book is accurate, and SOME of the things Hollywood portrays are real. But they exaggerate a bit too much.
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?
If anyone were to become a hero, it would have to be Philip--- in the land of Falseness, which, incidentally, is not supported by Fort Nico! In reality, Church is the real hero (no, not the institution, the man!) He showed leadership in the war and a large amount of brains. He was the one to suggest that converted Indians could be used. That made the British really win the war, and made Church a hero. His ties with some of the Indians led to a better understanding and a help to the British. If church had stepped down and not shown up in the leadership at all. Why, we would be living like the Native Americans right now.
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?
How odd is it that a group of people racially consider the members of another group as being exactly the same and that the wrongdoings of some define the whole group? Not odd at all in the world we live in today. The English were buffoons. Some of the Indians did not want to fight and merely wanted to stay out of it, such as the Indians in the north. But of course, the English attacking just fueled the giant fire that was the Indian cause. Had people thought the Indians as different, the British would've won much easier. The British, in doing so, helped the Indians join forces, which complicated the politics in favor of the Indians.
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?
Joining the English was a smart thing to do, in all honesty. Taking up against their family, their home was probably extremely hard to do. If it was an Indian who was converted, I wouldn't imagine that it was really all that difficult since they were already separated and were basically with the English. For the ones that were not, well I'm sure it was much more difficult. I do not hold them in bad regard for it was what was necessary. I believe those Indians were sensible. They realized that they were losing and, in order to perhaps save themselves and the tribe culture, had to help the British win so that the tribe may perhaps survive and not be hunted. If I were a native, I would go and help the British. But, i would not do it in plain sight. I would sneak out because I wouldn't be able to face my friends and leave them to fight them. I would take the winning side. I want to live.
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?
Nobody should have a right to mount an enemy's head on a stick inside a town, which is what Plymouth colony did. Neither side could make any claims to moral superiority. Both of them were doing wrong. Moral superiority is not something that is real. Both were doing terrible things and one is not better than the other. sure, one side may have an advantage, but that doesn't make the British any better. Just because your technology is better, and it usually was, doesn't mean you are better in your actions. as the question said, they both tortured, they both were doing terrible things and how can there be a "superior" if they both do the same action?
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 must say that I agree with this reviewer. I noticed that Philbrick usually tried to stick to the history aspect more than the "here's what's right to do! " aspect. He stuck with the facts and was pretty neutral. Perhaps some moral lessons is not to be degrading as the British were and not to tick some people off with treachery. It may start a war! However I am relieved that he did not give much of an opinion. When learning history, I believe it is better to form the opinion yourself. He did avoid the issues. Sure, someone can go on to say that "oh, this was a terrible thing!" but then that would take away from the historical aspect of the book. Stating what happened is a smarter option.
0 comments:
Post a Comment