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?
To a certain extent, I think that this assertion is entirely correct, and in fact, I noticed it while I was reading myself. However, I don't think that the fact that he chose to avoid to moral issues and to not "take a side" should be criticized. The book is truly a history one; it reports the facts without letting the author's own opinion impede the story of what actually happened. And then again, I believe that there was blame to be cast on both sides of the conflict, so much so that I can hardly blame Philbrick for not taking a side. The lesson that Philbrick endeavors to teach is involved with that belief of shared blame. He would like the reader to realize that America was not founded on the happy, fairytale setting of the first Thanksgiving, but on a bloody battleground with no absolute good and bad. With the exception of the attack on the Narragansett's, and the enslavement of the Indians, each side committed enough atrocities that the morality was no longer cut and dry. The Puritans, I believe, deserve more of the blame than the Indians, not only because they oppressed the Indians to spark the conflict, but also because of their conduct during and after the war, when they attacked innocent people and sent others off to be slaves.
As you observe, any failure by Philbrick to sit in overt judgment on the participants is not necessarily a flaw of a history book. Your thoughtful response here (and elsewhere -- thanks) reminded me of something that's at issue when the question is one of "blame"; that is, it's pretty awkward when we make evaluations (or keep scorecards :))about groups, as opposed to individuals. Let's discuss that in class. If you think of it, remind me. Thanks again for thorough responses.
ReplyDelete