Mayflower Questions: Part 2

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?

I think that the hero that emerge was really Benjamin Church. He was able to work with both sides while being considerably humane (well as much as you can be during a war) towards the Native Americans. He was able to think outside of the box and negotiate. He recognized the Native Americans strength in fighting with their knowledge of the land, and because he was kind and willing to compromise as well as focus on what the Indians really wanted he was able to use it to his advantage. He wasn't perfect of course. There were times in the book that really made me want to hate him. But he really emerged as a leader to his army. What I think really made him a hero was when he captured Annawon and his people in a completely bloodless manner. One of the qualities of a hero is saving lives... no matter which side they are on. I'm sure there were other heroes (Native American or women) during the war as well. I didn't really see Mary Rowlandson as a hero, more as a survivor.

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 had begun to think that since one Indian tribe had attacked, it meant that the others were thinking the same way. So the English decided that they would be one step ahead and attack an innocent tribe in fear that they would join the already hostile tribes. This left the tribe no choice but to defend themselves and fight back. An example of this would be the Narragansett's and their fort. They had no intention of attacking because they had made a treaty, but they became worried would fight them and as it turns out they were correct. The English way of doing this cause the Native Americans to become stronger and with more people in the armies and, in the end, made the war last longer.

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?

At first I was amazed, but it does make sense. The Native Americans had been fighting against each other for years before the English came, so it really wasn't much of anything new. I don't really think of them as treacherous or opportunistic. I think they figured it would be good to keep the English as allies. Maybe they never really believed they would ever be able to completely wipe them off of America and it would be in their best interest to get along. If I was a native I think I would have gone with the Native Americans in the beginning, because I think the English were wrong. But towards the end I would have wanted peace and been in Benjamin Church's group for the English.

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?

There is no way either side in King Philip's War could make a claim to moral superiority. Both succeeded in killing so many innocent lives. The English had no faith in the Native Americans as a people, even the ones that were living with them (the Praying Indians) they confined them on islands. The Native Americans scalped people women and children and many people survived that only to die of blood loss. I suppose I was more angry with the English, especially how, in the end, they executed Annawon, and their unfair trials. The English were conniving and the Native Americans were brutal. I was disgusted with both of them.

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 don't think Philbrick exactly avoided the moral issues, and I wouldn't exactly say he didn't take a side. I think he leaned a little towards the Native Americans, as I did. But he didn't blatantly pick a side on purpose, he was only trying to record events. I think there are a few moral lessons Philbrick wants us to learn. I took away the power of diplomacy is something that ought to be used rather than violence. I think he also was intending to wipe away any misconceptions about the Native Americans, and in that I think he succeeded.