Mayflower Questions: Part 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 very religious. They believed the were part of the elect and whatever happened to them happened for a reason. They were able to accept the bad, for example all the deaths, and keep going. Although, this trait could also be considered a downfall because their religion did have this sense of exclusivity and they did have the "Strangers" in their camp, so they were unable to accept them (like during Christmas) which could have led to fighting within Plymouth itself. Also, their time in Leiden was helpful for their survival skills plus they knew how to hunt. But because they were so focused on survival, the Pilgrims didn't think when they stole the Native Americans corn and realize that it could lead to trouble later on. The Pilgrims knew how to be diplomatic. They were able to establish an agreement with Massasoit.

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 for a misleading and often somewhat hokey mythology?

I think it's because it is what people like to hear. They want to believe the people who are considered the founders of America fit our ideals today. People think they were religiously tolerant and became best friends with the Native Americans, leaving their differences behind. But also, the real thing isn't quite as magical. The hokey mythology version is softened, it leaves out the violence and the death. I didn't even know there was such thing as King Philip's War. And then there is the fact that the story really has been told multiple times. Mostly just passed down and taught to young kids. This is the first time I have actually read something about the Pilgrims. All I remember of them from elementary school is making funny hats and being in a play about them around Thanksgiving.

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 tradition began to collapse when the original leaders began to die. The new generation of Pilgrims didn't have to work for their survival and no longer had to depend on the Native Americans. They started to believe they didn't really need them anymore. There was also the pressure of land. I think that was one of the big downfalls. The English want more and more land, and land was the thing the Native Americans possesed that the English wanted most so slowly but surely the were pushed into a tinier and tinier spaces. Then the rumors were pretty bad, too. If only both groups had handled their problems with less force and more diplomatic motions, then maybe the ordinary people wouldn't have become so angry with one another. I think both Josiah Winslow and Philip should have treated each other with more respect.

5. Discuss the character of Squanto. How did the strengths and weaknesses of his personality end up influencing history, and why did this one weakness make such a difference?

Squanto was very important to the Pilgrims. Without him Massasoit might have been less likely to make peace, we don't know, although he did do it by lying about the plague being in barrels. He must have been very likeable because he became Bradford's right hand man, to the point where he stood up for him against Massasoit which could have been a disaster. By knowing both the Pilgrim's and the Indian's languages he was able to use that to his advantages. I think the one weakness that made such a difference was his weakness for power. He was almost able to pull off a conspiracy that would have wiped out the Pilgrims and made him the most powerful sachem. He could have joined together powerful tribes and perhaps changed the history of the United States.

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 largely influenced by all the newcomers to the colony. They started to become quite promiscuous an greedy. I think that they knew that this was happening and accepted it largely in part because they didn't care. They probably thought they were getting along just fine the way they were. Who cares if they weren't as good as their parents. I think this reputation was deserved. You can especially see their ungratefulness in the way that they deal with the Indians. I think that the denunciations of the second generation were a self-fulfilling prophecy. They were probably told this from the start before they started to even act that way, because they never had to really fight for their survival. So in a way they were spoiled rotten and because they were told they always would be they saw no reason to change their ways.

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 seems to be somewhat rooted in what actually happened in the seventeenth century?

Native Americans in movies are usually old. They live out in the wild and always seem very mysterious or spiritual. Sometimes the are very violent and they scalp people. In Mayflower they are living in the wilderness. They are represented as normal people, who have a different culture than Europeans. But they are smart and their culture is very rich and interesting. I think that in movies they can maybe even thought of as uncivilized because they are so different. I guess some people may not even really realize that they are a person just like they are. It is true, as I have learned from this book, that the Indians were violent in war. They scalped people and burned their houses, but that was normal in Indian culture. Unlike Europeans though they didn't attack women and children, and they tried not to wipe out an entire people with one battle. Personally, I think Indians really aren't that misrepresented anymore. I think there has been struggles on the Native Americans side so that they wouldn't be because of the harsh treatment they have endured from the past.