US History From a Brasilian's Perspective

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.