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 traits that helped them survive limit them in other ways? How so? The pilgrims believed that the natives were trustworthy, and that they could be allies. For example, the alliance with the Pokanokets gave the pilgrims protection from other natives, as well as food. However, at times the pilgrims trusted them too well. They were tricked many times by people like Squanto, who almost started a war between Massasoit and the Pilgrims.
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 truths about these times in exchange for a misleading and often somewhat hokey mythology? Philbrick pointed out in the preface that people are fascinated by beginnings, so of course they naturally want to hear a story that consists of happy events such as the beginning of Thanksgiving, instead of the gruesome events like the plagues and death rate. Before reading Mayflower, I had no idea that as many as 90% of Natives died as a result of the Pilgrims settling.
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 prevent it? The English felt like they didn't need the Indians anymore to survive, and therefore treated the Indians with less respect as though they weren't equals. Rumors started going around that so-and-so was going to attack so-and-so, and when tensions builded and the trust dwindled, all sides started preparing by building armies. And so, the war started. More treaties could provide more trust between the groups along with less rumors.
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? Before the pilgrims even arrived at the New World, Squanto was taken as a slave by Thomas Hunt, and Squanto went to Europe and learned the English language. He returned home wanting to become a leader after seeing the disease, and ended up becoming a bridge that would connect the Pokanokets and Pilgrims. He told Massasoit that the worst thing he could do was attack the Pilgrims, because he had seen their firepower. He was a peacemaker at first, but then started lying about Massasoit turning on the Pilgrims, which created tension and distrust between the Pilgrims and the Natives.
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 (pg. 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? They acquired this reputation due to their values in life. Their parents (this is after all, why they moved) were spiritual. Their children were very materialistic and sought land and wealth, instead of religious freedom. This reputation was well deserved because they were the aggressors that started a war. The denunciations were a self-fulfilling prophecy. The greed of the second generation was bound to start a war sometime.
8. Compare Philbricks 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? In Hollywood movies, Indians were usually portrayed to be totally uneducated and easily tricked. The only thing they could do was find food and make a shelter. However, in this book, it seems to be the opposite of this. The Natives were very tricky and deceitful. For example, before Squanto died, he tried to overthrow Massasoit. This book encourages us to think that, apart from technology, the Pilgrims and Natives were equals.
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? In my opinion, there wasn't any hero. But if I had to name someone, I would name Benjamin Church
because he killed Philip and ended the war. He would definitely be considered a hero to the other colonists because he was injured in the Great Swamp Fight and still managed to track down and kill Philip.
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? Some of the English thought that because all of the tribes were Native American tribes, they might be loyal to each other. Also, there was an answer by the English saying that the other English colonists joined them because they were all colonists under King Charles, which made the coming war racial rather than just political.
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? Honestly, from my point of view, the Indians who joined the English were treacherous and ignorant of future events. What I mean by that is the English most likely won't stop this war until they are the ultimate power. I would have sided with the Natives because they are protecting their culture (which is also mine), and they are defending themselves against a rising power who is likely to enslave them or kill them like before.
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? I think that the Natives could be the side to take the claim to moral superiority, simply because they were not the aggressors. The English could have made a treaty and accepted all the terms, because then those practices would be stopped.
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 find this to be very true because he really did avoided taking sides. This book's purpose was to teach us the history of the beginning of the making of the United States.
No comments:
Post a Comment