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?
Upon completing Philbrick's work, I was struck by its definitive, matter-of-fact style, much in the vein of standard Puritan writing, ironically. I do believe that Philbrick took no sides, as he took the monumental approach of neutralizing as much of the story of Plymouth as possible. I find his goal quite admirable, and I believe he produced a work of high quality. It is not easy to avoid taking sides, particularly when one is dealing with such issues as war, race, and the risk of destroying one of the most sacred American experiences.
However, I disagree with the fact that Philbrick avoided moral issues. While his goal was not that of a preacher, in describing the activities of the characters with utmost detail, it was practically impossible to avoid talking about morals at all. Instead, he treats morals just the same as he treats any other aspect of the book: simply by presenting the facts. The people in the story, from William Bradford to Squanto and King Philip and Benjamin Church are all people just like us. They faced major decisions, and faced consequences for their choices, good and bad. While everyone has heard the adage of learning from historical mistakes, it is certainly applicable here. Other than that obvious piece of advice, I think Philbrick is warning present-day people, historians and non-historians alike, not to be too gullible. For generations the myth of the Mayflower lived on, and the ugly details were ignored. Philbrick reminds us of the ever true but unpleasant reality that mankind is not perfect, and rarely are stories as simple as the first Thanksgiving, nor characters as simple as cute little English men and women dressed up in "Pilgrim clothes", or friendly Indians who were, as the story goes, more than willing to assist the Pilgrims. While people like the condensed version, because it makes them feel good, it is rarely accurate, and historians are more interested in accuracy.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Mayflower: Question 15
Mayflower: Question 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?
Before considering whether the Pilgrims were morally superior in the wartime conditions, it is necessary to consider their moral practices prior to the war. At a very superficial first glance, it appears that, as Puritans, the colonists of Plymouth were indeed quite morally sound. However, while being virtuous in outward acts, there is an issue: exclusivisity. As "outsiders" from England came and founded various colonies all across New England, the colonists of Plymouth feared being "tainted" by the immoral practices of the newcomers. While this in and of itself is not bad, it did lend itself to creating a sense of haughtiness, a sense that the Puritans were right and everyone else was wrong, because they were inevitably doomed in the eternal sense.
When the war began, in typical European fashion, the English settlers showed no mercy. Perhaps they simply were following the practices of the natives, but the truth remains: if they were really God's elect, did God truly tolerate such cruel and repulsive practices? This was utter hypocrisy on the part of the colonists.
On the other hand, the natives engaged in similar practices. However, to them, war was seen as spiritual, and thus was as important as any other activity. Viewed in this way, the Indians seem morally superior, because at the very least, the war did not cause them to radically revamp their code of values. However, I still do not believe that religion, of any kind, is an excuse for such brutal abuse of human dignity. It is very difficult to be "morally superior" in a wartime environment, but engaging in activities that today would be classified as "crimes against humanity" is no way to give the appearance of being righteous.
Mayflower: Question 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 important thing to consider when evaluating the actions during King Philip's War is that, before this, New England had not seen a conflict on such a wide and far-reaching scale. Thus, practically all the Natives were in unfamiliar situations, so it is easy to forgive their decision to turn against their kin. In most cases, the number one priority was safety, and the English, who in most cases were equally desperate, made offers that the natives simply could not refuse. While eventually the Natives may have been opportunistic in attempting to take advantage of the situation (similar to Massasoit and Squanto viewing the arrival of the Mayflower as an opportunity to alter the balance of power), this was probably not the case when natives decided to take sides with the English. I think the Indians were being quite prudent, and I think most anyone in a situation as dire as theirs would act similarly. Calling the natives treacherous would be absurd, because, as previously stated, the Indians were not all united, and conflict arose between them all the time.
Obviously, this varied from tribe to tribe. Strong, powerful tribes, such as the Mohawks, could obviously afford to weigh various decisions, as the consequences were not life and death. However, leaders such as Awashonks, did not have such a luxury, and thus were easily swayed by the English. Had I been in the situation of the Indians, I probably would have taken the safe road, and allied with the English.
Mayflower: Question 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?
At the very essence of King Philip's War, the English were mostly against the Pokanokets, and their direct allies. Unfortunately, as the war went on, the concept of "direct allies" became more and more hazy and nebulous. There were many complicated variables that served to muddle the picture. Power had shifted, and tribes that were once fierce and feared, such as the Naragansetts, had become somewhat subdued, and so did not play such an active role as would have been assumed.
However, perhaps the greatest misconception made by the English was that of the importance of familial relations. It is easy to understand where said misconception arose, as the clan-based nature of Indian settlements is quite obvious. However, several sachems, including King Philip himself, wrongly assumed they would automatically receive help from other sachems, simply because they were related. Unfortunately, many of these relations were simply marriage relations, so were probably not as significant as it would appear at first glance. My guess is that many of these relations were not because of the desire to strengthen bonds between different tribes, but rather simply marrying within class.
If the relations were complicated to the Indians, then there is no way the English could possibly untangle the complicated web of tribal alliances. To them, everyone was the enemy until proven otherwise, because it was the safe assumption, the assumption that kept them alive. It is difficult to blame them, but ultimately, this greatly slowed their progress, because, as Benjamin Church would later show, there were a great number of Amerindians who were opposed to Philip, and the help of these Indians would be crucial to turning the tide of the war.
Mayflower: Question 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?
To determine whether King Philip's War contained anyone who could be considered "heroic", it is first necessary to define what is meant by the term. At the most rudimentary level, "heroic" could simply refer to a person who rises above the rest and exerts a significant impact on events. Everyone remembers the main characters in a book or movie, so who were the main characters in King Philip's War? Two people with strikingly similar plotlines in the course of the war, and who both influenced the course of events significantly, were King Philip and Benjamin Church.
First consider the case of King Philip. As the name of the war suggests, King Philip's diplomatic connivery was at the very heart of the war's beginning. Of course, foolish decisions by prior leaders practically forced his hand, but Philip managed to organize a significant band of Indian tribes into one scattered but forceful alliance. Without his allure, perhaps the war would have gone down in history as a rather insignificant takeover of the already decimated Pokanokets. That being said, as the war dragged on, and became more violent and ruthless, Philip lost much of his support, and was ironically in hiding during much of the conflict. Without Philip, the war would never have happened, but the war ended not only in utter destruction across New England but also in Philip's own death, so he is more of a failed hero.
Benjamin Church, on the other hand, was an eager, opportunistic man who lived rather independently. As the war broke out, Church eventually convinced the more traditional military leadership to allow him to head a special regiment of troops. After a short while, however, it appeared as though Church would go down as a mere footnote in history, as a combination of defeats, disagreements with other officers, and a pregnant wife forced him to take a hiatus from his rally. However, Church felt a strong sense of duty, and, after his wife gave birth, returned to the scene (in a somewhat clandestine manner) and led an integral part of the army. Church's force was unorthodox, comprising men of both European and native descent (the natives proved useful, knowing the tactics of the enemy), but was determined and resourceful. Though Church could not put his obvious intelligence to its best use (due to frequent overrules by higher ranking officers), it is clear that he was a major reason for the end of the war, symbolically represented by the eventual capture of King Philip himself.
King Philip was the failed hero who caused the war; Benjamin Church was the successful hero who overcame all obstacles and ended the atrocious fighting.
Mayflower: Question 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, in portraying the Native peoples, chooses very much the same perspective with which he portrays the English people: relatively impartially (by relatively I keep up my DBQ practice of not asserting things too fully).
I think Philbrick's main goal in writing Mayflower was to dispel any misconceptions Americans (or other readers) had about anything related to the Plymouth colony, and perhaps greatest of these were those concerning the Natives. Many Americans, many of whom are probably more accurately deemed "European-Americans", stereotypically see Native Americans as primitive, clan-based peoples who stand little chance against European intrusions. While many natives on the American continent did indeed succumb quickly to the European threat, this usually was not due to the superiority of the Europeans themselves (or, conversely, the inferiority of the natives), but due to the superiority of the Europeans' immunities. However, that's another story (for those interested in learning more, I recommend the work of renowned author Jared Diamond).
What is true is that the Natives were more cunning, clever, intelligent, resourceful, etc, than most Americans (and even the Pilgrim settlers) give them credit. However, these qualities are lost in the sands of time, perhaps because of the eventual subjugation of Native Americans. The truth of the matter is that, in many cases, the natives such as the Pokanokets and Naragansetts held the upper hand in diplomatic reliations with the colonists. It was their home turf, and most of these groups had already encountered Europeans before (another common misconception is that the Pilgrims on the Mayflower were the first). The Indians were not stupid; they were trying to gain as much of an advantage as the Europeans.
There is also an image in popular culture of Native Americans being sneaky and devious, and that one should be careful in dealings with them (perhaps a European analogy could be drawn to the Jews). From the Pilgrims' perspective, this is certainly an accurate portrayal, as many occasions saw the colonists struggling with the decision to trust the Indians or not, with the consequences potentially being fatal. Personally, I think there is a mystique surrounding Native Americans, owing to their distinctive spiritual practices, that have blinded present-day people of the realities of the Amerindian culture.
Mayflower: Question 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?
As is often the case, older generations look at the members of a newer, younger generation with a bit of scorn, perhaps making comments such as, "Back in the day..." or "When I was your age..." Of course, Puritans spoke very formally, so the phrase "degenerate plant of a strange vine" is the historical equivalent to such phrases. What is essentially being expressed is a nostalgia for past times, when "things weren't so difficult" and "everyone knew their place in society."
However, the original Pilgrims were quite a proud bunch. They had worked countless months, even years, in order to make the Mayflower voyage possible, and thus they saw their work before and after the creation of Plymouth colony as quite an achievement. However, their descendants, who were born on American soil and so had no way of truly knowing the hardships in England, were seen as spoiled. Of course, the second-generation and third-generation Pilgrims surely resented being looked down upon, but living conditions were delicate as it was. Thus, they had no choice but to submit to the leadership of the original Pilgrims, or else lose everything to the ever-calculating Indian tribes.
Was this label deserved? Perhaps. It can certainly be said that the children and grandchildren of the Pilgrims lost much of the religious fervor that marked their parents and grandparents, and, following the passage of William Bradford, later colonial leaders failed to fully recognize the consequences of their decisions, decisions that would have fateful impacts all across New England. However, history also shows that greatness is difficult to prolong for a sustained period of time. While it would not be completely accurate to label the Pilgrims "great", it is true that they were resourceful, and defied great odds. On nearly any group of people, luck will eventually run out, so perhaps the children of the Pilgrims were doomed from the start. Perhaps the denunciations were indeed a self-fulfilling prophecy, but only in the grand scheme of historical patterns.
Interestingly, in calling their children "degenerate plants", the Pilgrims also refer to themselves as a "strange vine." Perhaps they knew they were flawed, or perhaps they were simply alluding to the fact that they were always outsiders.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Mayflower: Question 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 a Native American who had been captured in a raid by Europeans, and had actually lived in continental Europe for several years. Thus, he learned English, and eventually was able to sail back across to the New World. There, he discovered that his original village had been completely decimated by diseases, probably smallpox.
Squanto was an opportunistic character, so it should come as no surprise that he was a major figure in the early years of the Plymouth colony. On one hand, Squanto appears heroic to the Pilgrims. He showed them planting techniques that were vital to the Pilgrims' survival in the early years. Also, he was valued as an interpreter between Massasoit and the colony. However, as time went on, Squanto lost the trust of both the Pokanokets and the colonial leaders. Perhaps due to remorse at the way his home was destroyed, Squanto's real goal was to gain power in the area. This he accomplished by playing off of the Pokanokets' and the Pilgrims' mutual fears and uncertainties of attack. Squanto nearly succeeded in tricking the Pilgrims into believing that the Pokanokets were joining forces with the larger Narragansetts, and triggering an attack, but ultimately, a combination of luck and coincidence caused the Pilgrims to realize the false alarm. In the aftermath, Massasoit called for the execution of Squanto, who had obviously attempted to backstab the Pokanokets, but Bradford continued to hesitate, realizing how essential his interpreter was in dealings with the Indians. Eventually Squanto died of disease, nearly disrupting the entire power landscape of New England.
In summary, Squanto basically had the best of both worlds. He was naturally an Indian, but was thoroughly immersed in the English language and culture, and so could influence both the Plymouth colony and the Pokanoket society. Unfortunately for him, he was seen as an outsider for the same reasons, and so could not gain a foothold that he desperately needed in his quest to become a powerful sachem.
Mayflower: Question 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 agreements between the Natives and the Pilgrims, while always quite tenuous, were one of the more incredible parts of the Plymouth experience. Although there were still difficulties, most ntoably the language barrier, the Pokanokets and the Pilgrims remained allied, knowing that they could not survive against larger tribes, such as the Narragansett, alone.
Under the leadership of William Bradford in Plymouth and Massasoit of the Pokanokets, this alliance thrived. Unfortunately, following both these leaders' deaths, the new leaders were not always as prudent, and did not learn from previous generations. Had the new leaders used prior events as an example, peaceful relations may have been maintained. Ultimately, however, the greed of the Pilgrims, and the relative passive stance of the Pokanokets led to the breakdown of the delicate system. The Pokanokets began selling numerous tracts of land to Pilgrims, who were more than eager to purchase it. Eventually, as the Pokanokets sold more and more land, their situation became more and more dire, and King Philip was practically forced into the desperate decision to launch a war that would spread all across New England.
Mayflower: Question 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?
The fact that America has twisted the original story of its history into a mythology is hardly surprising. Did Washington really cut down the cherry tree? And we all know that Theodore Roosevelt didn't shoot that poor, defenseless, teddy bear. The very personality of America needs heroes. Not only does it need heroes, however, but it needs those heroes to be flawless in the eyes of the general public.
Thus, the national myth of Thanksgiving was created, elevating the status of the humble Pilgrims to that of demigods. No matter that these same Pilgrims were really brutal swindlers in their dealings with the Indians, and caused great destruction of many Native villages. Besides, who but a few scholarly erudites (such as Philbrick) would even bother to leak out the Pilgrims' true story? America has always shown a willingness to brush the embarassing parts of its history under the rug, as if they never even happened.
Mayflower: Question 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 were primarily defined by the fact that faith was of the utmost importance. In fact, due to their Puritan values that clashed with the values professed by the Church of England, the Pilgrims had already gained valuable experience in crafting an identity in a new (though in this case not exactly "hostile") environment: the Dutch city of Leiden. Despite being outsiders in Holland, the Pilgrims were stubbornly determined to live without restrictions on their faith that existed in mother England. Because they rejected the authority of the bishops of the Anglican church, the position of minister was an integral part of the Pilgrims' religious community. William Brewster, the minister at the time of the voyage of the Mayflower, provided great moral support for the community when conditions looked bleak. Eventually, the position of governor took importance for the colony, and the leadership of William Bradford enabled the colony to succeed in its first, most difficult years.
Ironically, many of the Pilgrims' failures can also be attributed to the ideals of faith and determination. Without taking a religious position, one could almost say that the Pilgrims relied too much on God's divine providence. When the band of explorers led by Miles Standish made some foolhardy decisions, such as stealing the native supply of corn, the Pilgrims were perhaps too complacent, in that they underestimated the strength of the neighboring Indian tribes. Also, the Pilgrims' determination, at times, tended to be a detriment to their progress. The instance when the Pilgrims became almost obsessed with building forts comes to mind. The Pilgrims certainly could not have succeeded had they not possessed this strong determination, but they probably would have been better off had they not been so haughty.
