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?

- First off, I think the willingness of the Pilgrims helped them survive. The attitude they had from the beginning of the journey was that they wanted to start a new life and they were going to conquer anything that stood in their way. The belief in their god to help them through the hard times was a major part because if they did not have their god’s support they did not think they would be able to succeed.


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?

- I think people today make the first thanksgiving happy and peaceful because they want to make it seem like our encounter with the natives was peaceful and they also wanted to cover up the fact that when Pilgrims first arrived to the Americas, it was not a cake walk. They did not just have all these plants, foods, and even a strong alliance with the natives. My total thought is that people try to cover up the truth because they do not want to show how bad the hardships were for our ancestors; and how they did not hop off the ship and in a week, a town was built. It took many years to build a town. Life was not easy at all.


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?

- I think the tradition of coexistence with the natives ended because the pilgrims became selfish and wanted everything to themselves. The pilgrims thought that they were superior to the Natives, even though the Natives taught them everything they needed to know about the land and the weather. The pilgrims knew they had a more powerful arsenal, so they thought that they could just wipe out the Natives. Once again the pilgrims thought that every piece of land, every plant, and every hunted game belonged to them.


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 was the only person who could translate the two languages. Squanto was fluent in English and the native language. But he was not the most trustworthy person either; a reason why Massasiot did not trust Squanto a whole lot. Squanto influenced history because he made it possible that the treaty between the natives and the pilgrims be reached. Squanto and few other natives taught the pilgrims how to crop the new land, and also how to survive in the new world. He also influenced agreements for the natives and the pilgrims. Squanto was considered a traitor to his native people, but a hero to the pilgrims.


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 children received this reputation because they did not go through the same hardships and struggles as their parents did. They accepted this reputation because of their Puritan beliefs. The children were always being told what they were not. No, I do not believe they deserved this reputation because they had no way of going through the same hardships as their parents. Their parents went through those hardships because they loved their children. And no I do not think this was a “self-fulfilling prophecy.”


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?

- Most of the similarities about the Natives that I found in the book, I also find in pop culture today. Whenever we here Native Americans we either think fighting, vicious people, or we think about how they can be peaceful and civilized. The tribes talked about in the book are both vicious and peaceful. The Mohawks were more of the fighting, violent tribe, and the smaller tribes were the more enlightened tribes. In the book it also talks about the culture of the natives. The book talks about how the dance and sing, and these images are reflected in today’s pop culture. I always knew that some of the tribes were accepting of our God, and others were not. The images I see in today’s pop culture is the spiritual rooted Natives, which I see in the book.


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?

- The hero that emerged was Benjamin Church of Plymouth because he had a great military skills, and he also had a huge very confident self esteem; which ended up helping him defeat the Pokanoket Sachem.


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?

- Many of the tribes that were allies to King Phillip did have different views than King Phillip. Tribes demanded many things, and had many needs. Some of these needs were targeted against the English. Many of the tribes were fighting for power between each other, trying to kill the English, and also wampums.


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?

- The natives that took side with the English were not traitors. The English in some sense were more powerful. These natives had a reason to side with the English because they knew they could be protected. If I was a native, I would have chosen to side with the English because I knew how much more powerful they were compared to the other natives.


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?

- No, neither side can because if they are both torturing prisoners, then one side can not say they have more moral superiority over the other if they are both doing it. If only one was torturing prisoners, then the other could claim moral superiority. So no, neither the English nor the Native Americans can claim moral superiority.


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 do agree with the reviewer, because he made this novel as factual as he could make it. He did not take any sides. All he did was teach us the relationship between the Natives and the Pilgrims. I think the moral of this novel was to teach and show us how we can prosper and advance our minds further than the Pilgrims did. This novel also taught me to be civilized, never act like viciously or violently.