US History From a Brasilian's Perspective

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.