Mayflower Questions: 1

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 survived their first few years in what would become America because of their firm resolve to stick together. They were united as one community of believers, persecuted and now free. Among them, there was a sense of brotherly love. Despite that, their brotherly love did not extend to the "Strangers" that came over with them, nor the Indians that they encountered upon landing. Their lack of ability to extend their hand to accept the help of other types of people limited them to their own skills and way of life. They could have taken up at least some Indian ways: it probably would have made life a lot easier, but they were restrained by their belief that the Indians were savages, and that the Strangers were not among the elect.

Mayflower Questions: 3

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?

According to the probably-also-mythologized doctrine of the Founding Fathers, America is a country founded on brotherly love and equality of peoples. The Founding Fathers idealized the Pilgrims; as the first English "founders" of America it was only fitting that they be models of the spirit of fraternity overtook later early American leaders. At the time, people probably subscribed to this story because it was happy and high-spirited; people often accept things as true just because they want to believe them. Over the years, however, the fictional but inspiring story became so indoctrinated that people slowly began to actually believe it. Eventually, even, it was almost the only story that was told. Americans haven't really "forsaken" anything, most people just don't know any better.

Mayflower Questions: 4

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?

Before the 1670s, there were much less Englishmen in America, and the demand for land in New England was low, and the supply was high. As time went on, though, more and more English people began migrating to New England, and the demand became high and the supply rather low. Loathe to move further from the established colonies, the English began to purchase the Indian's native homelands from them. The Indians were in need of money, (and they were at a disadvantage anyway, because they had no English money whatsoever) so they sold them the land. However, the children of the first Indians to sell land soon ran into a problem: the English were very nearly cheating them out of their land, and soon, they would have nowhere to live. Each side became angry at the other, and the conflict of King Philip's War began.

The conflict could actually have been easily avoided if each side -but particularly the English- had simply respected the boundaries of the other. If the Pilgrims hadn't been so selfish, they would have realized that they were exploiting the Indian's ignorance of the English concept of landholding, and stopped when they had what they needed, rather than what they wanted, and King Philip's War could possibly have been diverted.

Mayflower Questions: 5

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 an Indian who had been to England, and spoke English. He used this ability, which was nearly unique among Indians at the time, to begin a plot to become a supreme sachem of the area. He made sure that the Pilgrims were happy with him, and then turned around and told the Indians that the Pilgrims could release a "plague" upon the Indians at will, and they must look to him for protection, so he could keep the Pilgrims happy, and the Indians safe from the plague. He hoped to deceive the English into attacking the Indians, so that he could take over the tribes in the midst of the confusion.

Squanto utilized his ability to speak English and the language of the Indians to the fullest extent. In a daring power grab, he exploited the trust of both the Pilgrims and the Indians, attempting to take command of Massasoit's tribes. Despite the fact that Squanto had tried to start a war between his people and the Pilgrims, William Bradford fiercely defended Squanto from the rage of Massasoit after his plot was discovered. For some amount of time afterwards, Massasoit did not trust the Pilgrims, because by keeping Squanto safe, they had violated their treaty with him.

Squanto's cunning nature allowed him to incite a plot that potentially could have caused a permanent rift between the Indians and the Pilgrims years before King Philip's War would begin. Luckily, Edward Winslow managed to heal the rift between the Pilgrims and the Pokanokets before it became immoveable. However, it seems to me that he was unable to face consequences. It's probably ridiculous to think that anyone would do this, but I get the feeling that it would have been proper for Squanto to hand himself over to Massasoit after his coup failed. Rather than do that, he stayed with the Pilgrims under their protection. This caused a "bitterness" as Philbrick says, to enter between the Pilgrims and the Indians.

Even though Squanto was only one man, he made such a difference in the Pilgrim-Indian relations of the new world because he was one of the only ones in the early stages of English settlement who could speak both English and the language of the Indians. He was the go-between for both races, and because of that, any trouble he incited affected both peoples intimately. His attempted takeover sparked the first great dissention between the Pilgrims and the Pokanokets, and even though the wound was healed quickly, it may have planted the seed of the later conflict known as King Philip's War.

Mayflower Questions: 6

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 children of the Pilgrims were told they were "the degenerate plant of a strange vine" because their parents clung to unorthodox religious beliefs, but the second generation did not hold those beliefs so dear, which was all that made the Pilgrims noble in the eyes of some. They accepted this reputation because they knew it was deserved: they had fallen away from their parents' religious beliefs, and not only that, but they also began to basically cheat the Indians out of their land. They had become degenerate, in a sense, and their degenerate nature caused this comparison to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The second generation of Pilgrims did not become "the degenerate plant of a strange vine" because they were told they were so; they already were. The minister who spoke this line was not saying it to insult the children of the Pilgrims, but to point out something that was true.

Mayflower Questions: 8

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?

One aspect of Native Americans Philbrick points out that is often lost to popular culture is something that I can hardly put words to, but it would best be described as their method of conducting themselves. To an outsider, it could almost seem conniving. For example, the Indians would abandon their sachem if he proved to be weak or not fulfill the wishes of his people, much unlike the English notion of loyalty. Squanto's attempted coup against Massasoit, and similar attempts by others, are also examples of the Indian's different method of politics. Squanto slyly turned everyone against each other without ever lifting a finger and this seemed to be a common method of gaining power in the Indian world. Also, the Indians of the Northeast did not live in teepees; rather, they made their dwellings, called wigwams, out of trees.

As with many ridiculous things, popular culture has shreds of truth in it. For example, the Indians did actually paint their faces and participate in war dances, and they also relied on the predictions of shamans, or "powwows" to make decisions. Another aspect of Indian culture highlighted in movies and books is the scalping of war victims, which also actually occurred.

Mayflower Questions: 9

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?

As far as these characters go, the only one to whom I could honestly assign the title of "hero" would be Benjamin Church. I'll forgive him for participating in the attack on the Narragansett's fort, (maybe the Englishmen really did believe that the Narragansetts would eventually attack) and move on. Church recognized that some Indians truly would side with the English, and desired long before his companions that those "friendly Indians" be brought into the English army. He wasn't, like many Englishmen, blinded by racial prejudice, but comprehended the different interests of the different tribes. Church also knew that English battle tactics wouldn't win a war on Indian territory, and used the Indians who eventually fought with him to learn their style of war. With the help of sympathetic Indians, it was one of Church's company that soon killed King Philip. Church was a hero because of his ability to adapt to his environment and to inspire his troops.

Mayflower Questions: 10

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 regarded the Indians as a single entity, like themselves. However, they failed to realize that each tribe had radically different agendas and motivations. For example, the Praying Indians, if they had taken sides at all, would probably have fought with the English, had the English not assumed that the Indian = Evil equation was true. Had the English understood that one tribe did not necessarily share the same interests as another, they most likely would not have had to worry about the threat of the Narragansetts, who may have remained neutral but for the English attack on their fort. Also, during the war, there were some groups of Indians, like the Sakonnets, willing to ally themselves with the English, but the English would not accept their help until much later in the war because of their racist prejudice against the Indians.

Mayflower Questions: 11

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?

The Indians that sided with the English were not treacherous, nor were they, at least as they were portrayed in this book, particularly opportunistic i.e., they were not out to further themselves. They were, I believe, merely sensible, and for some reason throughout the story, I regarded these Indians as generally more intelligent than the others, although that is really an ill-founded assumption. They picked a side, and they picked correctly, whether they were picking it because they became angry with their sachems and left, or because they believed the English would win and needed protection. As far as which side I would have taken, I think that I would have just stayed at home. Honestly. I'd want the Indians to have their land, and certainly what sympathies I had would have been with them, but I don't think anybody should hurt the innocent, which both sides did.

Mayflower Questions: 12

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?

Despite the difficult nature of the conflict, I think that it is possible for the Indians to claims some, slight level of moral superiority, and even this can only be claimed at certain points, shakily. Before the war began, Philip's indignation was indeed righteous, and it did seem as if it was necessary for him to go to war. The Puritans could not have remained unaware of the fact that they were truly cheating the Indians out of their own land, and so the war began with a moral blunder on the part of the English. (Indians: 1 – English: 0) After the war began, Indians slaughtered the women and children of many villages, but the English attacked the Narragansetts, who were believed to be peaceful. (Indians: 2 – English: 1) The English began to move the peaceful Praying Indians, portrayed in the book, actually, as better people than the English, to what were, in essence, concentration camps. (Indians: 3 – English: 1). At the end of the war, the English shipped off many of the Indians to work as slaves on sugar cane farms. However, we have no reason to believe that, had the Indians won, they wouldn't enslave the English- it happened to Mary Rowlandson- so I think I'll only give the Indians a half a point. I think it's safe to say that if you would have murdered a person given the chance, it's nearly as bad as having the chance and actually murdering them. So, final score on the MoralSuperiority-o-mometer: Indians: 3 ½, English: 1. Indians win!

Mayflower Questions: 15

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.