Mayflower: A Story of Courage, Community, and War

And so, after a nearly 3-month hiatus from blogging, it is time to return to the blog for AP US History!!! Here can be found my thoughts, as provoked by the questions concerning Philbrick's informative (and incredibly detailed) account of the story of the Pilgrims.

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 their survival in other ways? How so?
The Pilgrims had several important character traits that allowed them to survive in the New World. The first of these was faith. From the moment the idea for the journey originated, the pilgrims looked to God with firm belief. Although the situation often seemed desperate, even impossible, they managed to maintain their faith that somehow, God was helping them to find a better life. This faith may well have come from their next major trait: hope. This was likely the driving force behind their journey: the hope that someday they could finally reach the New World and make it their "promised land". This hope, combined with their faith, fed their most important character trait: determination. The pilgrims were msot definately determined. They kept pushing forward, even in darkest times. However, while this trait may have assisted int ehir survival, it also amnaged to hinder it. At times, the pilgrims (especially those that explored the new territory) were so determined that they managed to put themselves in life-threatening situations without much foresight, and they found themselves facing unfriendly natives or unforgiving climates and just barely being able to make it out alive (if even that). This determination was also likely the source of some rather foolish mistakes in the years that followed...

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?
It is most likely that America has shaped Thanksgiving into what it is commonly known as today for commerical reasons, more likely than out of sheer ignorance. That is, when Lincoln dedicated the holiday, it was probaably meant to remember the truth as it should have... but over time, people saw the great feast of the first Thanksgiving as something that should be mimicked today and once food companies picked up on that, it became the entire focus of the holiday (well, that and football). This doesn't, however, apply to just Thanksgiving. Similar situations can be found in Christmas and Easter, whcih are now trademarked by Santa Claus and the easter Bunny, rather than the Nativity and the Resurrection. It's a sad truth that just seems to comsume a very consumer-based society.

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?
The tradition of peace that had been established in the 1620s seems to have fallen through the cracks because it was not effectively passed on to the next generation. After all, the main combatants in King Phillip's War were direct descendants of the original natives and pilgrims. It is possible that the wisdom of cooperation and community made so much sense to those such as Bradford and Massasoit that they felt very little need to discuss it with their children. Eventually, those children grew up and became more itnerested in gaining more land and power and so they essentially established a relationship with each other that was the opposite of what their parents intended. Hence the deviation from cooperation to war.

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?
At a glance, Squanto seemed to be just what the Pilgrims needed. He was understanding and helpful, and most importantly, spoke English and could therefore assist the Pilgrims in developing acqaintance with the natives, particularly Massasoit. So, this influenced history deeply in that he in so doing essentially saved the Pilgrims by helping them to survive. However, Squanto was not just the friendly savior the Pilgrims came to see him as. With great intelligence, cunning and deception, he created mistrust among his fellows in an attempt to gain power, which may, in a way, have been setting the kindling that would fuel the flames of war in the future. This was almost certainly not his intention, but an effect of his efforts nonetheless...

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?
This rather blunt statement concerning the children of the Pilgrims is a somewhat accurate description of them. It was not deserved for all of them, but for those who sought the power gained by winning a war, it is perfect. As mentioned before, the Pilgrims were strangers in a new place who grew to accept and be accepted by the natives. Their children were nearly the opposite: they wanted power and land and resources, and had no concern for the natives reactions to invading thier lands. they ended up slaughtering natives and in so developing hatred between them, upsetting the very work their parents had done fifty years previously. And yes, as the second generation disregarded the wisdom of their parents, it was a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.

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?
Hollywood shows us what we want to see. In modern society, we want to see our ancestors, the Pilgrims, as the heros of the story and the natives as the savage, heathen villains- barely even human. So they have come to be known. However, in sharp contrast, Philbrick respresents both sides of the story in great balance. We see both the struggles of the Pilgrims and those of the antives, alongside each other and can sympathize with both groups. In this way, it is very hard to determine who is the real hero and villain, a fact that Philbrick portrays very well in not maiing the end of the war a happy victory or a celebration, because both sides suffered greatly and similarly. Although somehwat juvenile, I believe a decent telling of a similar story is Disney's Pocahontas. Here we have two main characters, one on each side of the battle (albiet a different one) and can see both sides of the story and how both sides of the battle (natives and settlers) had their greatnesses and their faults. Curiously, though, it is the English who ultimately become the villains... something of an ironic twist.

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, as I stated earlier, there was so much pain and evil on both sides of this conlict, it is hard to pinpoint any one being as heroic. However, I find that Benjamin Church came out as something of a hero. This is not just because he led the party that eventually killed Phillip. It is because of how he led his group. He defied common practice and teamed up with the natives, even former enemies, to work for the common good. He did not try to use them as puppets- he used their methods in addition to his own and so learned a lot and together, they became quite the impressive force. Chruch and his group displayed the kind of teamwork and cooperation that heralded back to the Pilgrims. In this way, he was a hero in my perspective.

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?
Well, the English were not very interested in getting to understand their opponents in this war, and so they never really came to the conclusion that the natives were many different peoples, not just one tribe of savages. This is just the sort of ignorance that causes people to lose wars and get themselves killed. The majority of the English saw every living native as their enemy, and so created for themselves an enemy that was near impossible to conquer. This was the time when they complicated their situation and caused it to worsen, by pitting themselves against potential allies. However, the somewhat wiser among the English saw that there were natives who did not serve Phillip and became acquainted with them, creating a force that could help them win 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?
I think that the natives who sided with the English were very brave and yet also a bit treacherous. They were essentially abandoning their former ways and their tribes, but that was necessary for themselves. It is much like in any situation where hurt subjects must overthrow a tryrannical leader (in this case, King Phillip). And yet, they were also very brave, for they were going up against this highly dangerous force. Again, they were rather heroic, like Church, because in working with the English, they displayed the power that comes from trusting each other and working together. As one can tell, I would likely have joined the English forces had I been a native in this war. And yet, this is all done with hindsight, which is of course 20/20... had I been there and not known how this all would have turned out? Well that's a bit harder to say...

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?
In a word, no. Now, in several more words, especially when one views the situation from this perspective, there was no side of the war that was pure and clean or with the right to claim superiority. Both of the opposing sides had strong point and weak points, as stated previously, but here is an unpleasant spot where they were both equal: the mutilation of victims. It is pretty horrendous, no matter who does it... However, it can tend to be associated with natives, and in that way, it is forgotten that the English did it as well. No matter what part of hsitory it is, no side is truly superior on a moral standpoint, because everyone is human, and therefore prone to the same human msitakes.


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 that this reviewer only took what was stated directly in the book. And from that perspective, of course there is no evident moral. After all, it's an adult-level history novel, not a kiddy book where they actually say "the lesson we can learn here is...". In this sort of work, any morals are typically implied. Alright, so I find that there is a moral lesson that can be learned from this work, and it is somethign that I ahve been referencing time and time again: that victory can be best achived through teamwork and cooperation, and that immediate distrust and hatred will lead to disaster. Along these lines, another related moral is that ignorance is very far from bliss. Those who were the monsters in this war (on both sides) were the ones who only took the enemy for what they were on the surface, never bothering to know them for who they really were, and then slaughtering them on sight. Their ignorance blinded them and ultimately led to their destruction. And, lastly, as is the case with almsot any story pertaining to histroy, a lesson that can be found is to not forget the atrocities of the past and cover them up with pleasant, distorted representations, which is exactly what we learned had been done concerning the First Thanksgiving. All in all, the terrible things that happened in the past are the basis for lessons that will help us in thwe future.