US History From a Brasilian's Perspective

Salt Lake City

To some people this may be a weird picture to choose for this topic, but I think it fits the idea of "America's Landscape" pretty well. When Lawson assigned this piece of homework, I was thinking "Oh no" because America is so complicated and has so many different parts that it's impossible to get it all into one picture. But then I thought, America is both the industrialized and high-tech city and the beautiful, calm mountains and plains. So I found this photo that has a city, representing the industrial part of America, and a grand mountain range in the backdrop, representing the magnificent areas of Nature that can be seen throughout America.

If Lawson had given us this CD and told us to choose one song to answer these questions about (not that she would ever do that, unfortunately) this would be the song i would choose. But for all the wrong reasons. First off, it's the only one I was familiar with on the receiving of this CD. Second, even if I did skim through the other songs, this one is one of the more upbeat ones and I can't resist an upbeat song. However, when I would go to answer the questions, I would be left in the biggest state of confusion without knowing how to fix anything. And that's because this song is like an explosion in your face. It hops everywhere. It lists more and more stuff, each more random then the next. As I actually have to "analyze" this song I am just going to say that this song sort of represents what I mean by America being a complete whirlwind of...well...just about everything. The only thing connecting it all is the fact that it was fuel to the ever going "fire" that Billy Joel is talking about. He had way too many ideas in 1983 when this was released and no where to put them. I guess he thought he could make them all work in one song. Well, Ladies and Gentlemen, this song is what you get.

The Hands That Built America is a song released by U2 in 2002. It is about how so many people from so many different places were what created and nurtured America. My favorite aspect of this song is that U2 doesn’t talk about America as made up of Americans and Americans only. The song recognizes that the diversity of America is what makes America, America. I love how between lines of the chorus, multiple ethnicities are listed because it was all of these people who joined together on one land and made a grand community. It may have been rocky but it eventually fell together and created what is now the world super power. Another quality that makes this song so good is the adjectives used to paint the picture of “America”. Steel and glass canyons, stony fields, freckled hills, watercolour sky. These all inspire images in your head. Not to mention the idea of thousand and thousands of hands coming together and building our home from ground up.

I think Bob Dylan is another ingenious song writer. In 1964 he released “The Times Are A-Changing” another song with a great message. America has always been a whirlwind of politics, war, people, and just about everything you can think of. So, it’s completely accurate to say that times are changing because they were always changing. It’s just that, some people don’t like change and resist it for as long as they can. Dylan did everyone a favor and gave them a knock on their head. I like how he uses the idea of change being water that is growing and growing and that in order o not “sink like a stone” you need to “swim”. In other words, you need to change what you are doing and start to go with the flow because resisting the current isn’t going to get you anywhere. This is another one of those songs that I probably wouldn’t listen to if I hadn’t been forced to for homework, but I like reading the lyrics and seeing all the ways he’s telling people to change. My particular section is the part about the parents getting off of the new road if they have nothing to offer. Maybe it’s my teenage genes speaking up.

Youngstown is a song released in 1995 by Bruce Springsteen. He tells the story from a boy’s perspective whose life was changed when natural minerals (ore for one) were found in his town, Youngstown, Ohio. From then on, he was put to work in harvesting the minerals and transforming them into things like cannonballs and weapons for the army to use in war. The whole town is transformed and the work never ceases, even after the workers lose sight of why they were doing it in the first place. This represents the time in history when industrialization spiked and factories seemed to sprout out of the ground. From his tone (gah, DBQ word) he does not seemed saddened or elated. Instead he just seems to be dulled down from all the toil in life and the constant process of work. I thought that this song was a good example of what happened to thousands of people as a result of war, the discovery and collection of natural resources, and possibly even the feeling of always wanting more and more. And what happened to all these people when production stopped (especially when things like war ended)? They were left jobless and penniless until new work was found or more resources, discovered.

The most interesting lines in this song, to me, were the last ones:

"When I die I don’t want no part of heaven,
I would not do heaven’s work well
I pray the devil comes and takes me
to stand in the fiery furnaces of hell"

I was just like, "Dang...."

Phew, I’m glad the Depression songs are done. And even happier that they are directly followed by this 1963 song by Sam Cooke. Even the order of the songs makes sense (Lawson, you’re so nifty sometimes ^^). If anything else, what America really need in this period was change and that is exactly what this song is talking about. This song somewhat reminds me of song 6 because it make me feel the same sense of hope that the artist sang from. The most important thing of any bad situation is being able to look forward towards the future and expect it to be better. But, the trick is to not only expect it but to work for it to be better. Be the difference yourself. Emotions were wild in this time of history because African Americans were in a situation which they had never been before and were looking forward. Always looking forward. Looking for that change. And that change did come the second the Civil Rights Movement became a huge part of American society.

Strange Fruit is a song released in 1939 by Billie Holiday. The first few times I listened to this song I didn’t get it but I just wasn’t paying much attention. Then I listened carefully to the first four lines:

“Southern trees bear strange fruit
Blood on the leaves and blood at the root
Black bodies swinging in the southern breeze
Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees.”

My blood didn’t necessarily run cold but I did feel quite creeped out. This song is about the African American hangings that happened all over the United States, especially in the South. I’m not going to lie, this song creeps me out. But what makes me even gloomy and actually quite a bit angry is the fact that so many African Americans were treated this way and ended up in this fate. Such a sad song. Such a real song. And real is what most people tend to avoid. However, such subjects cannot be avoided. They have to be faced and corrected. Its distressing to think that America was suppose to be the place where all were equal and all were free, a place where all could find their place in life but instances such as these happened. And not for just a few years. For decades. Too long for anyone to suffer.

Do Rei Me, another Guthrie song, was made 1940 and is about the Dust Bowl and how it affected the people living there. Obviously, most people would think that living anywhere but in a place that has nothing left but dust would be the optimal choice. However, there were tolls and payments that had to be given in order to move and if you didn’t have what was need, you were stuck living your life in the Dust Bowl. This song reminds me once again of America’s suffering throughout the ages. So many people were stuck where they were, living off of the barest of necessities and being unable to do anything about it. They could dream of leaving but the chance of it actually happening and being successful were always low. It’s strange to see how stubborn Americans are yet the second something goes wrong they want to move and try to start somewhere new, despite warnings. Heck even the song is advising them to sit tight in their homes and wait for the worst of it to pass over. And if they do wait, they usually end up thriving more then they would’ve in a new place.

I think that it was ingenious of Woody Guthrie to make this song because it has a very truthful message in it. It’s interesting to see the big contrast between the message and the way that the message is put out there. I, for one, was completely surprised when this song came on because it was completely different from any of the other songs. It’s almost a hippity-bippity country tune, the type of song I wouldn’t take seriously if I didn’t listen to the actual words. It’s quite interesting to see how by telling the story of Jesus, probably the most well known ever, Guthrie is able to show that the people of the modern day world, the same people who criticize the Romans for nailing the cross and being unfair, would do the same exact thing if Jesus were to appear ion their midst. It may not be the same method but it would be the same action of shunning Him. This song was made in 1940, thousands of years after Jesus had lived. Perhaps Guthrie felt that Americans needed to realize that the arrogance gained from winning a war and establishing themselves as a world super power could end up being their downfall if they didn’t focus on the truly important things.

Paddy’s Lament. My absolute favorite song on this CD. This song was made in 2002 and is, in itself, a sad and passionate song. By no means does it praise America. But it’s the emotion of the song that makes it so intense and great. Hopefully, everyone has heard of the time when thousands of people from Ireland immigrated to America due to crop failure and the resulting starvation. So many, such as Paddy in this story, went to America for opportunity and a better life but instead got thrust into the whirlwind of civil war that was America at the time. The song tells of how patty sold all his (even though a girl is singing, she sings fro ma guys perspective) possession, all that he thought of as home, and went to America where he was forced to go to war under a General Meagher. In the war he lost his leg. In other words, nothing went right. He expresses deep regret for leaving Ireland and advices all the other not to come to America because it is not worth it, no matter what the stories say. This song teaches me that throughout the history of America, many people were able to succeed by immigrating but just as many, or possibly even more, found their hopes dashed when they found it wasn’t the paradise they weren’t supposing it to be.

This song was made in 1854 by Stephen Foster. During the American Civil War, this song became immensely popular and for good reason. It is song that can almost be said to represent the American population. There were (and are) so many difficulties in life, be it war or the great Depression, or just everyday poverty that if no one were able to rise from the ground and shake the dust off, America would never grow as a nation. This song seems to portray this very rising because at the beginning, the lady singing sounds tired and weary of life’s pressure. But, as the song proceeds, her voice grows stronger and you can almost feel her energy increasing. She most definitely feels for the message she is singing.

This is my 2nd favorite song in the whole CD. I love how you can just listen and feel the energy of her voice and her message bleed from the song into the world. This song teaches me to be grateful for even the smallest of life’s pleasures because so many times in the history of the States, the people of America have been struck down to the lowest possible means. But they stood up and grew from the experience. If anything else, we have endurance. Or maybe it’s just stubbornness. Either way, it has helped us get this far.

Mark O’Connor also produced and preformed this song for the PBS series “Liberty!” Although I couldn’t find a specific date, considering it was made for the same series as “Brave Wolfe”, it should have been made in or around 1997. It tells a story as the observer of a young lady who has become heartbroken over her love Johnny going to help fight the war. This songs is another sorrowing song, as it should be because it tells a sad story. War is destructive in more ways then one. Not only are areas where there is actual fighting affected, the families that are torn apart and the people back home are also affected. And this song brings proof of that. You can almost visualize a thin, hungry girl dressed in red, crying silent tears. This song really makes me reflect that so many people had to sacrifice and give in order to have the life that they wanted. And, even today, there are those that give and give to make life better for their kids or for a needy relative or another such relation. This song teaches me of this sacrifice

It’s really interesting how artists have been able to express whole stories with nothing but music, and that is what I feel Mark O’Conner has been able to do with Brave Wolfe, made in 1997. General James Wolfe is actually an Englishman who became a war hero after taking Quebec from the French in Canada in 1759. Unfortunately, in that same battle, he was shot and killed by a cannon shot. Now, one may not be able to get so much detail from this song, but through the use of a battle field instrument, such as the trumpet, and mixing it in with the more elegant violin, listeners are able to sense that there was something great about this man. Also, near the end of the song, the speed gradually picks up and becomes more a tune that suggests lots of movement, lots of action, for instance, a fight on the battlefield. What I think was most interesting about this song was that the instruments seemed to have taken sides and be answering to each others “attacks” while, at the same time, sounding completely together.

Although this song was interesting once I learned the history behind it, it’s not exactly something I would end up being obsessed with. It was definitely near the end of the list when it came to favorite songs on this CD. As for this song teaching me something about the history of the US, I would have to say that just the fact that the song was made (uh oh, going into DBQ mode) shows me that Americans really adore and respect their heroes. A much less impressive lesson learnt was that America always seems to be in some sort of war. Luckily, it’s from such events that the United States was able to grow and become what it is today.

When I first heard this song, I thought that is was a sorrowful song that could possibly represent the ending of the Native American rule and their loss. But I wasn’t sure what a Shaman was so I looked it up. A shaman is a person who is believed to have special spiritual powers that can be used to heal illnesses, and do other activities such as seeing visions and controlling energy. Knowing this bit of information changed my perspective on this song. Now, I listen to this song and I imagine it flowing across the land which is so important to the Natives. It seems to echo, something that would have occurred if the flute had been played in the deep forests or across plains. It is almost like the shaman is telling the sad story of what has become of his people to the earth itself. The song seems to highlight the point in history where the Native Americans had finally lost everything they used to call theirs and were still feeling the loss of their homeland and way of life. And, unlike the Apache Indian Drum song, this song ends on a long held note that truly brings about the end.

The drumbeats clearly bring about the image of Native Americans. There is the ever constant beat of drums but then other instruments, such as chimes and rain sticks, enter and play their own part. The drumbeats begin slow but gradually pick up pace and when they reach the fastest pace the song abruptly stops. But, to me at least, the song doesn’t seem to have ended. Instead, it almost invites you to continue the story being played out. I almost see the song as a story that gradually builds and builds only to leave you hanging. You just have to continue it. As for representing a part in American history, it would have to represent the period when Native Americans still were a huge part of the normal population and still peaceful with the settlers. I’m sure that if this song had been made to represent a time of war, the drums would’ve been angrier and more pounding. The drumbeats in this song are more of a graceful pounding.

For anyone who is curious, I looked up what “Apache” was and I found that it was what “culturally related” Native Americans from the Southwest are called. They are called Apache because they spoke in a language known as Southern Athabaskan, also known as Apachean. There are seven different Southern Athabaskan languages that were used.

This first song, Virgen Madre de Dios (Virgin Mother of God), is very obviously a religious song sung in Spanish. The song itself is made up only of voices, with no (or no notable) instruments in the background. Although one can’t exactly understand what the singers are saying, it is still evident that the purpose of this song was to instill wonder and awe to the listener, two qualities that always go hand in hand with God. The song itself is a slow song which is gentle beautiful and mysterious. For such a short song, it sure is able to get the right feeling. To me, instead of highlighting a specific part of American history, it reminds me that “America” was formed for so many different purposes that united as one in order to achieve a better life. It also reminds me that “America” is made up of a whole lot of diversity, something that it is most remarked for today.

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?

One of my favorite aspect about this entire book is that Philbrick didn't take sides. I despise it when an author expresses a belief as an undeniable truth. When an author takes side, it make me almost lose complete faith in them. Sure it could be true, but I'm also sure that something in the argument is false, no matter how small. However, I would have to disagree with the other part of the quote because by no means did Philbrick avoid the moral issues of the subject. He may not have taken sides as to who was morally correct but he did thoroughly explain how morality and religion played into almost every part of the formation of America.

I think that if there was a moral lesson Philbrick wanted his readers to take from Mayflower, it would be to be tolerant of people who are different then yourself, and that's stretching it. Philbrick is a historian and Mayflower is a history book. It may be an interesting story with some lessons to be learnt from, but it is not meant to provide an overarching moral lesson.

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 asolutely, positively no possible way that either side in King Phillip's War could claim moral superiority.

Period.

One could say that the Pilgrims were morally superior, what with them being spiritual and all that. That they were only in this war because they were defending themselves from the mean Indians who were killing their cows. But the Pilgrims were just as blamworthy as the Native Americans. Where the natives scalped their victims, the English cut off their victims heads and put them on pikes for everyone to see. Where the natives took captives (sometimes) and seperated families, the English led a mass genocide against all Natives, whether they wanted to fight or not. And, if you think about it, the Native Americans were also just defending themselves. In war, there is never such a thing as moral superiority.

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 think it's hard to categorize the Native Americans who went against their fellow natives because there were so many different variables being played out in each group of people. If I had to categorize them, I would say that the Natives were opportunistic and sensible. They definitely weren't treacherous because if any of them had their way, the war would have been short or would have not happened at all. They didn't find pleasure in mercilessly killing all their enemies, so treacherous won't be the correct adjective. They could be described as opportunistic because some might use the chance to gain power over the other tribes and into better relations with the English. They could also be described as sensible simply because some could feel when the English gained the advantage and staying on Phillip's side wouldn't bode well.

If I had been a Native I am pretty sure that I wouldv'e fought for the natives. From my point of view, fighting under the English would be the same as giving my freedom to them. I wouldn't be allowed to live the way I had my whole life which is a big no-no. And considering I would most likely be enslaved and sent off to Spain if my tribe was conquered and I was not killed in battle, I rather go down fighting.

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?

It seems that misconceiving the racial identity of the Natives was one of the biggest and stupidest mistakes that the English could have made. Not only did the English prolong the war more then needed by invovling other tribes that most likely would have remained neutral, they made more enemies each time they attacked or put pressure on a new tribe. It's true that some tribes may have come to the defense of Phillip because of past alliances. But many of them, like the Salonnets and Pocassets, tried their best to stay out of the war. However, because Governer Bradford wouldn't grant Church's request, they were almost forced to join Phillip's army. Later, when the English began to utiliz the Native Americans in the war, the Sakonnets and many others who had never wished to join Phillip were able to oppose him.

It's funny. This topic was my biggest pet peeve in the whole book. I couldn't stand how he English saw all Natives as the same, even the Praying Indians. Maybe that's just because it's rarer today (although I'm sure it still happens), but I still get frustrated reading about it.

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?

If anyone were to be considered as a hero in King Phillip's War, it would have to be Benjamin Church. I feel that if the leaders of Plymouth had listened Church from the very beginning the war would've been so much sooner. Church was the ideal man because not only did he get along with the Natives, he respected them and their lifestyle. When he lived on Sakonnet Island, he was good friends with the Sakonnets and their Sachem Awashonks. When the war began and Church became involved, he was constantly pushing to have ally Natives be allowed to fight alongside the English, something that hadn't been permitted before. These requests and all others of his were ignored time and time again. In early June, Church finally got an opportunity to make his plans come to life. In a little over two months, Church and his "followers" (which consisted of both natives and English) brought over 700 native Americans over to the English's side, killed Phillip, arrested his main advisor and warrior, Annawon, and ended the war.

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?

If you were to ask any American, especially those from an older generation, what their visual idea of a Native American was, you would mostly hear words such as savage, primitive, godless, and other such adjectives. It's likely that the image in their would be of an ugly, tall, tan man wearing only a cloth around his hips, his body painted with bright colors,a head dress adorned with feathers on his head, a quiver of arrows on his back and a bow in his hand. But while this image may have truth to it, there was so much more to the Native Americans. Philbrick shows very good comparison in his book. In Mayflower, Natives are not portrayed as a savage, weak community. Instead, they are shown as the main forces in New England, which is so much closer to the truth. America was their area, their land. They most likely knew it forward and back. When the Pilgrims arrived, they were scared, terrified of the natives. They knew that if the Natives attacked them, they would be the ones to perish, even with their advanced technology. They were hospitable to the Pilgrims after peace was established, helping them with food in the beginning years, attending them well when they visited the tribe, etc. To me, this is the biggest contrast because instead of seeing them as the terrorizing savages I read about in so many stories, I see them as a group of people who simply wanted to live their lives in peace (for the most part). They are kind, an adjective Mary Rowlandson attached to Phillip's actions toward her even during her captivity.

However, even if the Natives are different then what is imagined in today's society, the existing image had to come from somewhere. For example, the Native's practice of scalping their enemies. Multiple tribes used h methods to portray themselves as fearsome in an attempt to scare away the enemy (I guess the English didn't get the message). Or the image of Native Americans as warriors. If anything else, the Natives knew how to fight by using their surroundings to their advantage. Such images were derived from very non-fictional occurrences.

I've discovered that my computer hates me. I had just completed typing this up when it deleted itself and saved itself a second later... what luck.

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 came to the reputation of being unworthy of their parent's sacrifices because of the difference between their focus in life and that of their fathers. The second generations focus was to gain in material things, such as land, money, furs, etc, in other words, to become rich. This was the exact opposite of the 1st generation's focus: to gain in all things spiritual and to leave materialistic behind. I would say that their reputation was somewhat deserved, not only because they had indeed become focused on the material rather then the spiritual due to the environment around them but also because they accepted being the "degenerate plant" and did nothing to change it. However, I'm also sure that people such as the ministers may have accused them much more then necessary because of where they stood as role models to the community.

I don't quite understand the last question but if it means what I think it means, then yes, the denunciations were indeed as self-fulfilling prophecy. It could be that, at the beginning, the 2nd generation wasn't that bad. However, they were still straying from the path and therefore "unworthy". From there, the "unworthiness" would just continue to grow because the 2nd generation would feel that there's no way to be "worthy" and that there was no point in trying. Also, it could be that because they were expected to act as material obsessed, the 2nd generation would act to expectations even if they weren't that focused on it as much as it appeared to the older generation. And then, it may just be that the younger generation simply didn't give a hoot to spirituality and I'm here wasting my time trying to defend them. Oh well.

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?

I didn't like Squanto from the time he was introduced to the time he died of disease..or poisoning..whichever way you want to see it. As a native who was both proficient in English and..uh.."native", he was already a powerful and influential character. However, early translators always seem to have agendas and Squanto was no different. As a bridge between the Pokanokets and the Pilgrims, Squanto could hold both groups in his hands, which is exactly what he tried to do. he was a confident man and a good actor. not only was he able to trick both the Pokanokets and the Pilgrims for an extended period of time, he almost succeeded in setting the Pilgrims against the Narragansetts, the Pokanoket's main rival. However while he may be self-confident as knowledgeable in the ways of the English and the natives, his weaknesses were enough to bring him down. For one, he was dependent on the story of the Narragansetts attacking the pilgrims to freak the Pilgrims out enough to make them attack first. He may have been a catalyst in rising tensions but he was unable to keep the story straight long enough before other reports came in contradicting what he said. Also he was extremely focused on his own honor and power. Even Philbrick says that it was Squanto's ambitions that had him found out (134).

Squanto was able to make such a difference for a few reasons. First off, the natives were already uneasy of the English based on past experiences. Even though favorable relations grew between the natives and Pilgrims, and small discord could explode into something huge. Squanto's machinations just helped set off the spark. Secondly, the Pilgrims were extremely dependent on translators like Squanto, which gave him more power then comfortable. It was his choice to use the opportunity to try to make himself the strongest native in New England. Lastly, Squanto involved other tribes in his plans. By doing so, the fate of the Pilgrims became entangled with the fate of many more Natives.

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 peaceful relations between the Pilgrims and the Native Americans collapsed in the 1670s due to multiple factors including and new generation of Pilgrims that refused to - and had no need to - depend on the natives for survival, the arrival of more settler which at fist balanced then unbalanced the ration of native to European, the death of old Native and Pilgrim leaders who did not view the other race with the same respect as their fathers had, an increase in rumors and threats of Native attacks that were brought about by people such as Squanto and tribes who wanted to rise in power, the Europeans increase in greed for New World land, and the response of the Natives to this loss of land (one of which resulted in King Philip's War) all attributed to the gradual breakdown between Native and Pilgrim. The tradition of peace may have been preserved if the Pilgrims had built trust rather then discord by respecting and treating the Natives fairly as their fathers had instead of cheating the Natives out of their land and other such transactions. Selling Natives off as slaves didn't help much either...

Sad, sad day. Apparently I can't read and/or copy and paste from a website so I ended up doing different questions then the ones we were required to do. *sigh* I'm just gonna stick my head out there and do this.

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?

America, like any other country in this world, needs to show itself off in the best light possible. Who cares if the settlers drove Natives off of their land for a few pieces of clothing and tools? As long as "America" remains glorious no one will bother to question how things really happened. It's interesting to think that Thanksgiving isn't the only story that has been fictionalized into a sweet story that portrays America's ancestors as brave, kind, and charitable. All the other stories - Johnny Appleseed, Daniel Boone, etc - are probably just as fabricated with bits and pieces of the truth infused in them. These heroic men and women are the perfect role models for any American child. I wonder, if the truth became widely known, how would Americans view their ancestors?

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?

Some beliefs and character traits that enabled the Pilgrims to survive in the hostile environment of the New World included a strong sense of community, the ability to adapt to new situations like they had in Leiden, conservatism of their lifestyles and faith (which led them to leave England), perseverance to create a place where their faith could thrive, courage to explore and actually go to the New World despite various qualms, and the ability and initiative to make peace with the New World Natives.

Unfortunately, the biggest limiting trait of the pilgrims was their intent focus on their faith and the preservation of that faith. In later times, this intolerance made the Pilgrims assist with the Puritan persecution of Catholics and kick multiple people out of their community for blasphemy and other such charges. As Philbrick points out, it is ironic to see how they were doing the same things that had caused them to leave England in the first place. Another possibly limiting trait could be their conservatism. This trait kept the Pilgrims from being more tolerant of both other religions and other lifestyles. It wasn't until the second generation that influences form the the native Americans began to bleed into the Pilgrim's own lifestyles. It could also be that this conservatism kept the Pilgrims from fully understanding the Natives, which may have helped prevent the multiple misunderstandings that eventually drove the two apart.

Curious.....When I said I was going to start, it was Judy 5th....now it's August 2nd with a day to spare... Funny how time flies...And there's still the CD. i need to go cry somewhere ^ but hey, I'm still doing better then freshman year. I finished the notes on Plagues and Peoples at 2 AM the day of. I'm just that good at procrastinating. Ok. Enough Talk. Let's type up these questions.