"Mayflower" Discussion Questions

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 main trait that enabled the Pilgrims to survive in the environment of the New World was faith. They came to America to practice their religions freely, and were incredibly determined to do so. The Pilgrims felt very close to God and felt that it was their main duty to serve him as much as possible, which was difficult for them under the Church of England with its Roman Catholic influences. They realized the hardships they had to overcome in order to worship in the Americas, and put God first to endure problems and know the reward they would receive- the ability to worship as they wished. The Pilgrims were also very accustomed to their previous life in England, such as the people with whom they interacted, the physical environment, and food and shelter. Unfortunately, the fact that they were unaware of the challenges they would have to face themselves in America got in their way. They had to readjust to sometimes savage natives and even new foods and diseases found overseas.

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?
-Some of the facts presented in the book are somewhat difficult to understand. We often want to believe that the Pilgrims and Native Americans were best buddies who shared Thanksgiving meals, which seems like a nice idea, but then we discover that they did not always get along. Their Thanksgiving may seem different and untraditional to us, as we are accustomed to cranberry sauce, lines at the Kroger supermarket, pumpkin pie, the Macy's parade, and the Iron Bowl. We have been focusing on and planning "fun" Thanksgiving celebrations, that we often forget how simple and silverware-less the first celebrations were. It is easier to focus on icons, such as a ship crashing into a giant boulder, rather than the facts that have been painstakingly researched by recent historians, such as Nathaniel Philbrick.

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?
-Materialism and want are really to blame for ruining the peace between the Natives and the Pilgrims. The Pilgrims wanted more and more and MORE land, and they felt the only way to expand their territory was to kick the Natives out. They could have preserved that coexistence by accepting the fact that they had to share their extended land. If the Pilgrims were able to share land with other Europeans, then living with Natives- who were people too!- there would not have been a problem.

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?
-To start, Squanto was very helpful. He guided the English explorer Dermer through the New England territories, and even tried to rescue him in 1620 at Nemasket (54.) Squanto's helpfulness and openness influenced history by showing future European settlers that there were "good" Natives. Not all of them were savages that were worth fearing. However, other Natives such as Massassoit were distrustful of Squanto due to his ability to speak English and maintain a healthy relationship with men such as Dermer. Squanto's enemies such as Epenow feared that those who understood English would take hold of the territory and become dominant (54.) Squanto made a great difference for the relationships between the Natives and the English. Some were able to tolerate each other, but many became distrustful of the other group when it came to power and strength.

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 earned such a negative reputation because of their greed. They were the ones who were determined to gain land and power, unlike their parents and grandparents before them, who settled to gain religious peace and sought positive relationships with the land and Natives around them. Page 198 also states that church attendance grew smaller. The reputation was deserved, as the Pilgrims' descendants were concerned mainly with gaining possessions and land and ignored their religious duties, unlike their parents. The denunciations were like a self-fulfilling prophecy, as the want for land and power that did not previously exist began to grow with the future generations, which were more likely to become more selfish because of an increase in trade and economic growth that would come once the settlers were "settled."

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 presented the Natives in the way that they would have acted realistically. They were only "savage" if they needed to be, such as when the Pilgrim's descendants became greedy for more territory and when Phillip decalred war after the murder trials in the 1670's. Movies portray Natives as fierce, muscular men who run around spearing Europeans and eating them- they seem violent. But Philbrick narrates the stories of kind and helpful Natives such as Squanto who were not incredibly brutal and hateful. But the Natives did get into trouble that branded them with this negative image, as they did get angry when defending their land from selfish settlers and they did get involved in wars, and some even performed controversial acts against the settlers, scuh as when Philip planned to kidnap the governor of Plymouth and hold him for a large ransom (215.) The Natives, in real life, were conniving and smart; not bloodthirsty men who jumped at any chance to chase away the settlers.

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 King Philip's War, one man who emerged as a hero was Benjamin Church. Church was badly wounded toward the end of the war, but returns to battle despite not being fully recovered (281.) Church came across as heroic because he was able to tough out his wounds and keep fighting for a cause for which he stood strongly, and this act shows determination. A woman who appeared as a heroine was Mary Rowlandson. Rowlandson had lost a child and loved ones from the war, and she was held captive by the Natives, but she was a very forgiving woman. She accepted help from Philip despite the fact that he began the deadly war, and she looked past the violent reputation that other Puritans gave him. She may not have been a war hero like Church, but she was heroic for representing what the Puritans should have been- kind and forgiving. She was surrounded by Puritans who were greedy and disliked Natives such as Philip, but she did not let her neighbors stop her from becoming strong.

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?
-Alliances during King Philip's war represented the problems with racial identity. The settlers were allying with different groups of Natives, such as the Pokanokets, teh Quabags, the Uncas, the Narragansetts, and the Mohegans. There were enemy tribes among the Natives and even some of the settlers had disagreements over which Natives to keep close as allies and which ones to fight. The English believed that all the Natives were fighting for the exact same cause, which was not true at all and caused political issues during 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 see the Natives who fought against their fellow Natives as opportunistic. Yes, they were all supposed to fight to settle down the greedy Puritans, but many tribes sided with some Puritan groups. They had their reasons for doing so, and they probably felt that siding against other Natives was necessary to win support of the English people, who originally felt that the Natives were only hindering them from gaining territories. This seemed like a wise idea, but the Natives soon forgot what they were fighting for when some made friends with their enemies.

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?
-Neither side can claim moral superiority, in my opinion. The English sinned by being selfish and overly proud, and the Natives only fought back by declaring war. Instead of war, the Natives could have happily (or even reluctantly) tolerated the inevitable change and shared. Both sides ended up in a huge disagreement and lost many of their men to King Philip's War.

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 true, as Philbrick did present to us the good and bad sides of each group- the Natives and the English settlers. Both of them committed unnecessary sins, but neither side was portrayed as worse than the other. Both sides had to suffer the consequences of their selfishness and pride. Philbrick wanted us to learn from the experiences of the people during the 17th century that it may not always be easy for us to reach a peaceful or satisfying compromise with our enemies. The settlers and Natives disagreed and had to solve their differences by war, and ended up losing men and living in despair as their ancestors did.