1. The Pilgrims were very devout and in some respects hardheaded people. Their incredible faith in God's will was unrelenting to every aspect of their life. Whether they determined that every single death was simply "the providence of God" or believing they had the right to take away Native American corn and beans when they were hungry. I believe that every trait that enabled the pilgrims to survive in America also was a hindrance or limited them in some way, shape or form. The pilgrims were already outcasts from England when they went to Leiden, Holland. This seems to have gotten them ready to become outcasts from the whole of Europe and everything they were familiar with. The outcast attitude of the pilgrims did not help their Indian relations any. At first the pilgrims believed the Indians savage and were hostile towards them. Their attitude of "leave me alone" at first led to suffering and a very hard first winter in America. The Pilgrims other dominant characteristic was the unwavering faith in their God and their belief that all things happened according to his will. This obviously helped them survive and persevere in the face of so much death during their first winter. Their faith might of been a inconvenience sometimes. The Pilgrims demanded Sunday be a day of rest. Work could not be completed on this day and therefore in times of need (like when they desperately needed a fort built for fear of attack) their faith proved to be annoying.
3. Who doesn't like the thought of a little gluttony and indulgence in a faked up name of a holiday? I believe (as obviously stated by so many other people) that Thanksgiving in just another reason to blow money and feed our money crazed capitalist economy. Perhaps I may be an absolute prick but really America? Do we need another reason to blow our money? Are gas sucking SUVs and new 3D TVs not enough?? Plus, do Americans really need another reason to eat more than enough? How about in the spirit of the Pilgrims, we all go out to a farm and work all day or go hunt in the forest with primitive weapons? Maybe we could actually burn off some of the massive amount of useless calories we consume all in the name of an imaginary feast of our forefathers. Thanksgiving, I believe, is the most annoying fictionalized fact about the pilgrims. The whole Plymouth Rock mix up and scam is simply irksome. The whole ordeal is just proof that We like a very Romantic view of the Pilgrims and simply don't want to change that view. America has forsaken the truth for one reason and that is because the truth is just too ugly and we prefer to bend it to give ourselves some pleasure and make it seem that the Pilgrims were all sweet little angels.
4. In the 1670s New England colonies were expanding with the addition of many new Puritan settlers in Boston and many other towns around the area of Cape Cod. These Settlers wanted farms and a place they could call their own where they could carve out their fortunes as they see fit. Unfortunately this obviously required land and the Puritans were desperate for it. They started encroaching on Indian lands. The Indians had run out of trading goods and were resorting to trading land for English goods. Massasoit had now died and his son Metacom took over. He was not as good as a leader and not so eager to maintain the peace his father had worked for. The Indians started becoming aggressive again and were egged on by religious issues and trade problems as well. I believe if Metacom had been a better leader ready to accept change the conflict known as King Philip's War could have been avoided. The Pilgrims too had a large part to play in the conflict. They technically started the fighting but the Pilgrims too were becoming to stiff-necked in their views of the Indians and their desire for what the Indians had.
5. Squanto was quite the Machiavelli of the Indian world. He brilliantly tried to play off Massasoit and the Pilgrims to give himself some power. Squanto spoke English since he had spent time in England after being captured by the Englishman Thomas Hunt. Squanto was quite admirable to the Pilgrims since he helped them plant maize and get them through their first winter in the New World. Squanto was also a scout for the English. He shaped history by his actions as acting as a diplomat between the Pilgrims and the Indians and to his credit he helped gain important alliances between formerly hostile Indians and the Pilgrims. He certainly helped the Pilgrims gain a foothold in America and showed that alliances between the Indians and English were possible. Unfortunately the power he wielded between English and Indian corrupted him and he tried to play the English off against the Indians in an attempt for him to gain personal power that he had lost. He made a huge difference because , like i mentioned before, he provided himself as an outlet between Indians and Pilgrims.
8. What we today fail to realize is that the Natives in the Americas were not just a couple of ragtag villages hobbled together. These Indians were massive nations of thousands of people large all living in a society together. Perhaps we have come to see all Native Americans as one type of person but as the book reminded me, these people were all very different just as a New Yorker is different than a Southerner or a Surfer-dude from SoCal. Hollywood so often shows them as masses of unorganized primitive rabble but when in fact they had beautiful, varied cultures. I believe the book was making us see that these individual nations of people were really like those nations of Europe; independent, powerful, and culturally unique. Some popular images of Indians are still present, however. The Indians,as illustrated in the book, took grate pride in many of their cultural celebrations (ghostdances, etc...) that we have come to expect a Native to do. The Natives also lived in wigwams and they dressed in clothing that I would picture as "Native American." Their general behavior towards the pilgrims was also what was expected. At first hostility and then gradual trust. The Natives also waged war against the settlers and performed acts (such as scalping) that i imagined they would.
9. King Philip's War was certainly a bloody affair and not many heroes emerged from the bloody fray simply because leaders on both sides, frankly, made complete asses of themselves. Perhaps only one man can be rightly labeled as a quote on quote "hero." That man was Benjamin Church. The man simply had some common sense! Obviously traditional ways of battle were not going to work in the cramped quarters of the forests and bogs of New England and only Church had the sense enough to realize it! He commanded a garrison free of the governor's command and had the brains enough to employ the use of enlisted Natives to help him.
10. The English certainly had trouble seeing the Indians as all unique groups of people and no one singular group of people. Every tribe had its own practices, language, and way of living life in general. The English, however, perceived the whole people of America as one great race not the individual tribes that they were. This misconception only raised the problems that started King Philip's War and fueled it to more complex levels. Indeed, the War probably would have been over quicker if the English had the sense to enlist some of those Indians who were not pleased with King Philip's decisions to go to war against the English who they had come to trust and, more importantly, trade with. Certain tribes like the Narransetts who were on the fence about whether or not to go to war were forced into conflict by English aggression against them and English attacks. All in all, if the English realized earlier that each tribe of Indian was entirely different with unique wants, the war would not have lasted as long.
11. Those Indians who sided with the English were not being treacherous. These Indians were being sensible. As previously discussed, every tribe was a different entity entirely and therefore each tribe had different policies. Some of these policies were more carefully planned than others. The idea had occurred to some Indians that English guns, goods, and alliances were much more important than a few petty misunderstandings and jealousies. Maybe these Indians who sided with the English saw how well the "Praying Indians" were treated and realized it could be them too who were to get additional aid. These Indians were being opportunistic as well as sensible. They had a lot to gain in the way of weapons and alliances. They also had the sense to realize that the English were not going anywhere anytime soon and it might be best to support them in their efforts against Philip, who was already unpopular. If I was an Indian I certainly would pledge myself to the English cause. It is a very logical decision since the English would have More to offer me and besides, I'm in this war for myself. If I was an Indian I could look to the English weapon supremacy and be impressed and also see their goods as very desirable.
12. War is a brutal pursuit for both sides concerned. Even soldiers will tell you that in war, there are no winners, only those who live and those who do not. I believe the same applies to King Philip's war. No side can claim that their cause was more just or morally superior than the other. Such a claim is obviously contradictory to the fact that war results when two countries can not work with each other through diplomatic means. The Indians in the war were very brutal towards the English and certainly were not morally sound in their scalping. The English were no better. They drew and quartered Philip and other Indians as well plus were simply unpleasant to the Indians on many of their meetings. As mentioned in the question, there are accounts of both sides taking body parts as gruesome souvenirs. On the positive side, Indians saved Mary Rowlandson and kept her in fairly decent shape. The English too extended courtesy to those "Praying Indians," however they were not so nice to the captives they packed up and sent to become slaves. All in all, neither side can claim their cause more morally just than the other do to the amount of brutal acts committed on both sides.
15. I disagree with the statement by the critic of Philbrick. Philbrick did avoid pointing out any moral lessons. He made clear the problems the English showed with their animosity towards the Indians and how these problems damaged relations and heightened war between the two cultures. The main moral lesson Philbrick wanted the readers to learn was to learn to accept other people's differences and more importantly to realize how groups of people can be very different from each other. The English viewed all Natives as the same and to this end they were gravely mistaken. In our lives we sometimes stereotype people into categories by where they live and judge the individual by the group he or she is surrounded by. That thinking, as demonstrated in history, can be quite deadly and cause great conflict. The largest moral problem in the book was really the cultural clash between the Indians and the English that was always a problem for the two people. Whether or not to cooperate was always a pressing issue in early America.
No comments:
Post a Comment