About book Mayflower: A Story Of Courage, Community, And War (2006)
First off, I am to blame for having expectations. I thought Mayflower would be an easy reading general history of the Pilgrims and the foundation of the Plymouth Colony. It was, for about 1/3 of the book. It was so general that I don't think I learned anything. Little attention is paid to the how's and why's of the Pilgrims departure from England. It is explained that they didn't like the formal Church of England so they left. Okay, that's a bit to broad for me. Little detail is provided about who the individuals were- only a few people get any attention. Once the colony is established all military activity is attributed to Miles Standish. Little biographical information is given about him and no primary sources are quoted so I can only assume his motives are the author's conjecture.The narrative itself focuses mostly on the Indians who are portrayed in greater detail but in a confusing manner. The final 1/3 of the book focuses on King Philip's War- fought 50+ years after the founding of Plymouth. The section/chapter transitions seem like they were written by an editor not the author as they contain rather cliché `cliffhanger' foreshadowings. So on this score it had little to do with my expectations and more to do with the style- which I did not like.As to the books broadness the author speaks of military technology in the colony as having moved passed that of Europe. Specifically he talks about various types of muskets: the flintlock, snaplock and matchlock varieties. But at no point does he explain what those are, how they differ, or why one is better suited to Indian fighter vs. fighting a European style army. This kind of thing is typical throughout the book. The author tell us one paragraph of the great abundance of fish, whales, birds, deer, shellfish etc. in the area of Plymouth and in the next paragraph tells us how the Pilgrims are starving. He does little to explain how or why they were unable to take advantage of the natural resources or why they came so unprepared.The author is most critical of the Pilgrims decades AFTER Bradford and Massasoit were gone. He hardly mentions that Bradford for decades DID embrace our nations most treasured values -- democracy (gosh -- Bradford led with town meetings!), separation of church and state (no religious leaders held political office while Bradford was Governor), free enterprise (tossing the original socialist system overboard), and trial by jury (12 jurors). Bradford is the "grandfather of America" and all of New England, and many Natives, mourned his death.Bradford wanted a small community, and was OPPOSED to Europeans coming over the sea and grabbing land, but you'd never know it to read Philbrick's book.Philbrick suggests Bradford was naive, trusting the merchant backers, but he did so when there was no choice. Why did Philbrick omit the examples of Bradford's shrewdness ... when he personally uncovered a plot to overthrow Plymouth and exposed the plotters... or when the King sent a new governor and some at Plymouth wanted to overthrow the man, but Bradford wisely and correctly waited the man out, saying, "Governor Gorges hates it here, and he'll soon return to England" (which he did)? He omitted 90% of the positive facts about Bradford and the Pilgrims during the Bradford years.Philbrick makes a big deal of the Pilgrims stealing seed corn from the Natives. But they had just landed in the New World, had heard nothing but horror stories about the savages, and .. by the way ... after meeting and making peace with the Natives, PAID them back. The author mentions Bradford taking the helm of a fishing boat, but downplays his heroism -- the colony was about to starve and no one else would said the ship, so Bradford sailed into tracherous waters, at great personal risk (and with success).Bradford enabled the New World to become the United States. No Bradford, no US. The author seems to think it was easy for the Pilgrims and the many non-Pilgrims on the Mayflower to form a peaceful community; even after describing all the failed colonies, Philbrick hardly gives Bradford credit for building the houses, government, legal system, economic system, judiciary, and foreign relations. But Bradford pulled off a miracle, and he did it with courage, humility, tolerance, brilliance, honesty, and respect (of Natives and of the colonists who elected him 31 times).Plymouth was overrun by Puritans who, under Winthrop, was a nasty theocracy. The author criticizes Bradford's intolerance, yet he opened the doors to Quakers and others persecuted elsewhere. True -- he didn't want the Quakers to stay, becuase they were disruptive )stripping naked and screaming during their church services). But Philbrick doesn't mention this. This Week magazine, in the current issue, gives a scathing review of Philbrick, saying his history was unscholarly, and for some reason he calls a "hero" the white man who chopped the Indian leader into 4 parts. My criticism is that the author must have deliberately wanted to do a politically correct "hatchet job" on the Pilgrims, downplaying the wonderful human values and leadership strengths of Bradford, implying that he was responsible for evils by the colonists long after he left office.
In this account of early colonial New England, Philbrick reveals far more about the Mayflower’s story than what most of us pick up in second grade Thanksgiving celebrations. In fact, the title is somewhat misleading as the book actually contains two interlocked narratives. The first concerns the Pilgrims (and the other Englishmen who sailed with them) who came over on the famous ship and established the colony at Plymouth. Philbrick’s depiction of their struggles points to the depth of motivation (or foolhardiness) that drove a group of mostly urban tradesman and their families into the wilderness. Without skill in hunting, fishing, or farming, they moved beyond the edge of civilization as they knew it and entered a world of hunger, pestilence, violence, and death. The second narrative shows a very different New England. Here Philbrick shows the broader Massachusetts Bay Colony one and two generations later than the Pilgrims arrival. The lives and livelihood of these colonists are far more secure. To keep it so, they are engaged in a bitter war with the diminishing tribes of Native Americans of the region. Just as Philbrick explores the cultural, social, and political dynamics of the English settlers, he offers an equally compelling glimpse into the societies of these Native Americans and their political structure. The common theme across these tales is the ferocity of life on the edge of the wilderness, but Philbrik juxtaposes the two generations of colonists by emphasizing their relationships with the Native Americans of New England. The earlier settlers depended on alliances with at least some tribes for survival, and they opened up trade and even personal ties for peaceful coexistence. The latter generation no longer finds itself dependent on native protection; indeed, they tend to see the Native Americans as “in the way”. On the whole, Philbrick offers an evenhanded view of this competition including horrific atrocities inflicted by both sides – neither glorifying nor entirely demonizing the English settlers – though it is difficult to avoid sympathy for the plight of the native inhabitants. Ultimately, Philbrick shows that the story of the Mayflower (and likely many other historical episodes encountered only briefly or superficially) are both familiar and veiled – offering far more depth than we might have imagined in those elementary stories of turkeys and buckled-shoe settlers.
Do You like book Mayflower: A Story Of Courage, Community, And War (2006)?
I just got a late notice from the library that stated: "The following library materials [Mayflower: A Story of Courage, Community, and War] are 14 days overdue. Please return these items as soon as possible so that others may enjoy them." Well, they just got one eeensy thing wrong: no one's going to be enjoying this book. Perhaps I'm not speaking from experience, as I found myself unable to finish the delightful snooze-fest, but I'm trying out my theory that books also follow The Movie Rule. What's The Movie Rule you ask? It's my own special scientific rule, thoroughly tested by Me, and backed with tons of anecdotal evidence, that states: If a movie is not interesting in the first ten minutes, it's not gonna be". (You can test it too! To get started, just rent Hollow Man or Autumn in New York). I know what you're thinking: how can I test the theory on books if I don't read the whole book to see if it gets better. Well, one way is to trick someone else into reading it, then see how they liked it. This would work if I valued anyone's opinion as much as my own. As it stands, however, there is no valid way to test it unless I bite the bullet and read the book myself. And in the name of Science I totally would, but, you see, it's overdue.
—Erika
Nathaniel Philbrick's book "Mayflower" appears at first glance to be merely a recounting of the Pilgrims journey to the New World and their miraculous survival that first winter culminating in the first Thanksgiving, that's all here, but takes up only about 80 pages of the 450+ page book. In reality, Philbrick offers the reader a complete history of Plymouth Colony from 1620-1691 (when it was merged into Massachusets Bay colony) The bulk of the narrative focuses on King Phillip's War (1675-76) for my money one of the most fascinating and under-reported armed conflicts in American History. Philbrick chronicles the main engagements of the war, in a very evenhanded way, praising the colonists bravery when warranted, while at the same time not being afraid to call them the savage butchers that they clearly were. He also does a great job of guiding the reader through understand the complex maze of ever-changing alliances between the colonists and the various native tribes of the region, and analysing how the conflict's long-term consequences helped shape America today. An appropriate book to read this time of year.
—Mahlon
MUST READ!! Even if you're not a history buff, you will benefit from finally hearing the true story of the roots of this country. Philbrick bridges the gap between the prevailing ideals of this time, the first being the sweet story- of the pilgrims and natives sitting down for turkey and indian corn and pie, trading goods and stories alike, the second being the idea that those brutal English arrived and forced the natives off their land- Bad English, Bad! Of course, it's much more complicated than that and Philbrick does an amazing job of telling the story without being biased toward one group or the other. What was amazing to discover was that the line wasn't even drawn so distinctly between the two groups.Ultimately, I believe this is a story about the human condition. How we are all fundamentally the same regardless of background or race. What most resonated with me while reading this, is how much these people were able to live through without just completely falling apart. I mean, in today's society we get upset if our cable goes out or we need therapy because we can't make our relationships work, or someone shoots someone on the highway for cutting them off. The hardship that both the pilgrims and the natives had to handle is not even comparable! Disease, starvation, and to lose a child is the most gut-wrenching ordeal imaginable and so many had to go through this more than once.Not to scare anyone off though, this book is not all doom and gloom. There are so many moments of surprise and even funny nuggets of history. And if you live or have ever lived in the New England area you will have a special connection to this historical era.This book is especially relevant in an election year, when we need to rememember the people who began this country. And regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum, the important thing to remember is that these people were independent thinkers! They didn't have the mind-numbing media telling them what to think or politicians giving them false promises inside fancy speeches. Funny how the key word today is "Change" and that's just what the Pilgrims were searching for, the difference is that they were faithful and knew exactly how they wanted to live, were willing to risk everything for it, and did. Today we hear the word "Change" and applaud with no clue what's behind it, what the implications in that word are.... because, I'm sure as many of the pilgrims would attest, not all change is good.
—Tracy
