The Mayflower 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 Pilgrims had some unusual traits as a community, due to the fact that their society was based on their religion rather than some form of government. They banded together, trying to escape persecution in England. This made them a very tight-knit group, very loyal to one another. This allowed them to work together well, which would become necessary for their survival in the hard years ahead. For one thing, when people were getting sick and dying left and right that first winter, the healthy people risked their own health and devoted themselves to caring for the sickly. If they had not done so, there may have been no Plymouth colony come spring. However, this tight community did present some problems. Some people, notably the Separatists, did not think that the Pilgrims rules and beliefs were correct. This dissention caused some tension between settlers. For although the Pilgrims had left England to escape religious oppression, that seemed to be exactly what they were imposing on the non-Puritans that joined their community.

(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?

In all honesty, a story about some rugged Puritans, lost, confused, and dying doesn’t seem like as good of an icon for America as the classic images. No one wants to hear “America began with the Pilgrims choosing to land at Plymouth because they couldn’t get to where they were supposed to be. They stole corn from the natives, and in fact, that is probably the only reason they survived. Even so, they nearly all died from sickness and lack of food.” No, people want ancestors that they can be proud of. So instead of the truth, we hear stories If the Pilgrims triumphantly stepping out onto Plymouth rock, immediately befriending the Native Americans, and despite a hard winter (where no one seems to die), they have plenty of food come fall and go on to happily form the USA. I think America prefers the hokey story because we all like to think that we had noble beginnings. Dont we?

(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?

Rumors were circulating that Massasoit’s son Alexander was thinking of teaming up with the Narragansetts against the Pilgrims. Fearful of attack, the Pilgrims asked him to come to court, which he failed to do. Winslow brought Alexander to court by force, angering many Natives. The real tension began when, a week later, Alexander died, supposedly poisoned. Many Natives, including Alexander’s younger brother Philip suspected Winslow. This put serious strain on the bond that Plymouth colony had with the Native Americans. An unfair trial a short while later was the last straw. Both sides knew war was coming (even though neither wanted it). Despite Philips deep reluctance to fight and constant postponement of the conflict, war was, at this point, inevitable unless one side would step up and make peace. But, of course, neither did.

(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, despite common belief, was a very manipulative, power hungry guy. Squanto was one of the only people in all on New England to know both English and the Natives’ language, and certainly the most competent when the Pilgrims arrived. This gave him a powerful position. HE could spread rumors with no one to contradict him. For instance, he told the natives that the English kept the plague in barrels and would release it on the Natives if they didn’t do what the English said. However, it is a possibility that if he hadn’t manipulated Massasoit to fear the English, they wouldn’t have given Plymouth assistance, and without the Natives assistance, Plymouth almost certainly would not have survived the first winter.

(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 Pilgrims were a “strange vine.” They didn’t conform to the expected religion in England, and travelled across an entire ocean just to gain their religious freedom. Their religious fervor was essential to their survival and to their community. The Pilgrim’s children lacked this fervor. They didn’t have the same close-knit community that their parents had, and they knew it. They hadn’t known what religious persecution had been like. It wasn’t a main part of their likes. Survival, however, was. It is possible that they didn’t see as strong a connection between surviving and religion as their parents did. With less importance placed on religion and being criticized for it, it is possible that the Pilgrims children simply accepted that fact and moved on to survive the best way they knew how.

(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?

Popular culture usually fails to integrate the fact that natives aren’t one bug group. They have separate communities, allies, and enemies. In moves it is usually “Indians vs. English” which was never really completely the case. They also were not as savage (or as peaceful) as some would like us to believe. They were peaceful, but grew aggressive when threatened or worried, just like anyone else would be. However, some traits, like the ability to move through the forest safely and quickly, skilled hunting, and resourcefulness are all true. In fact they were probably even cleverer than most people realize. Stories of how they helped the English fight display their resourcefulness and quick thinking.

(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 me, the person that seems the most heroic is Benjamin Church. Aside from the bravery and wit he portrays (possibly because much of the information Philbrick had on him was written by Church himself), he does several things which raise him above the others as a hero. First of all, he is willing to work with Natives. He was smart enough to know that they needed help and humble enough to ask for it. Most of the English were utterly opposed to this idea because they believes that there could be no good American Indians. But Church knew what was best and stood by that. Finally, when he did get his troop of Native warriors, he bravely led them to countless victories.

(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?

Because the English refused to accept that not all the Natives were out to kill them all, they (aside from Church) strongly rejected any Native assistance in the war. Not only did they reject assistance, they attacked neutral tribes. The most devastating instance of this was when the English attacked the Narragansetts’ fort that was built purely for self-defense. If they hadn’t been so blind to the fact that all Natives didn’t think alike, they might have prevented the Narragansetts from becoming their enemy. Who knows, they may have even been able to convince them to become allies.

(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?

Well, as question 10 pointed out, the Natives were not one group. Therefore, they are not really being treacherous, as they weren’t taking up arms against their own people. A good amount of the Natives that sided with the English were already enemies with Philip or other tribes that were fighting against the English. In these cases, they were definitely being opportunistic. They saw a way to eliminate their enemies, and if it meant fighting with the English, so be it. There were a lot of Natives that seemed to be perfectly willing to lead the English to the rest of their people when they were captured or had deserted. Those do seem a bit treacherous, but I can’t really blame them. I think that a majority of people would in that situation (even if they don’t think so at the moment). What side I would have taken in by chance I was a Native American living in New England at this time would probably depend on my tribe's relations with the English. I wouldn't go against my tribe. Now if I was the leader :) who knows? If the English had been nothing but kind to me, I may join them. It would also depend on my relationship with other tribes, though. Then again, who really knows until you are put into that situation? (which I hope that I am not any time soon) I don't think that I would choose based only on English vs. Natives though. I would consider all of the factors.

(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 truly could. Although the English would definitely try, based on claims of Christianity and higher education, in reality, they didn’t have a good argument. Many of the Natives had the exact same education as the English, and oftentimes treated their captives with more civility than the English would, as the account of Mary Rowlandson shows.

(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?


He doesn’t explicitly state any moral lessons, but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t there. I do believe that he did an excellent job of not taking sides. I think that it is inevitable that the reader will empathize more with the English, not only because we are more familiar with the lifestyles of the English, but also because there was simply more accounts written by the English than the Natives. Despite these obstacles, Philbrick made the reader see through the Native Americans eyes and want them to be okay, to keep their land and their culture. I think that Philbrick is teaching us moral lessons simply by the way he tells the saga of the Natives and the English in New England. He makes it clear that if one side had been more humble, open minded, or forgiving at several points in the war, or even before the war, some sort of peace could have been established. Even if Philbrick didn't want to teach us these lessons, they are there, written in history. I think that we would all be better off if we learned them. Even if the fate of New England isn't at stake here.