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?
2. The beliefs and character traits of the pilgrims that enabled them to survive in the new world vary. There are a few main characteristics though, which include the will to succeed, perserverence, ingenuity and strong faith. With out these main characteristics, the pilgrims would have ended up like the people who had gone before them. Either at the bottom of the ocean or killed by Indians. I do not believe that the same traits that enabled the pilgrims to succeed limited them at all. I think that if anything the traits kept the group together.

1. 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?

Concerning the faux thanksgiving images and Plymouth Rock, the early pilgrims needed to get more people to come over. For example, if I was a person in Britain who was thinking about emigrating to the "New Frontier", then I would want to know it was like. If the people who were already there painted a picture of terrible diseases and vicious Indians, then I would be seriously rethinking moving to the New World. Now, if all I have heard from the New world is that the Indians are friendly and that they are having feasts with the local people, then I am going to be thinking, "Alright, cool, the New World does not seem too bad at all. I may enjoy myself. I mean, if there is enough food to have a feast with a lot of people, then the going must be pretty laid back over there". Of course the early pilgrims are going to work up the great and wonderful things of the New World and down play the pitfalls of the New World. That is smart PR.

1. 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 tradition of a peaceful world between the pilgrims and the Indians collapsed because the pilgrims were getting greedy. The pilgrims constantly wanted more and more land, the Indians refused more and more, and eventually the pilgrims said okay we'll just take from them. The connections between the leaders collapsed and the bloody confrontations began between the pilgrims and the Indians.

1. 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 a mastermind and a schemer. He seems like a guy who goes to study his subjects and then uses the information he learns to completely destroy them. Squanto relates somewhat. He went to england. So he was able to see the english people in there comfortable state. He learned English and he milked that skill for all that it was worth. Back in the New World, Squanto talked with the pilgrims to set up deals. He talked with his fellow people to warn them of the English's plague which they could release at any moment. Then he tried to talk the pilgrims into attacking the Indians. Squanto's big plan was to step in in the midst of the debacle and essentially take control of all the Massossoit's tribes. Unfortunatley for Squanto, Massassoit discovered his plan and was ready to kill Squanto. Though, William Bradford decided to stand up for Squanto, resulting in Massassoit not trusting him or any of the pilgrims for a long time after that. Tough luck for Squanto and the pilgrims.

Eventually another man by the name of Edward Winslow was able to build another bridge between the Indians and the pilgrims. Squanto single handily ruinded the relationship of the Indians with the pilgrims. By trying to play both sides, he ended up pushing both sides away from eachother.

1. 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 acquired the reputation of “the degenerate plant of a strange vine,” because compared to their mothers and fathers, they were disgusting. The may have said that were part of a religion, though their actions told a different story. The mens need for power pretty much sealed the deal for the fate of their generation. Since the beginning of the pilgrims, the state of the group as a whole (their attitudes, composure, contenance...) deteriorated significantly. I believe that it was deserved and that the denunciations of the second generation were a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy.
1. 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?

The MAYFLOWER encourages us to rethink Hollywood representations of natives by trying to tell the natives story from their point of view, or at least from a "put yourself in their shoes" point of view.

Images such as ones with Indians tribes and pilgrims together conducting business (i.e. trades, exchanges...) seem to represent events that actually occurred in the seventeenth century.

1. 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?

I think that Benjamin Church could be a heroic. Mainly because of his adapability to the situation around him. He recognized that no matter how good his English battle tatics were, they would be close to useless in the wild terrain of the Indians land. He understood that he needed to use the local Indians to help him and he was correct because later on it was his company that killed King Philip.

1. 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?

The misconceptions of racial identity complicated the politics of King Philips War in an obvious way. Plainly, if King Philips had a hard time seeing individual tribes, then he probably just went ahead and attacked the ones that gave him the slightest reason to attack them. Doing this is clearly not smart. If every ruler fought his wars like this, then how could there every be alliances? There would not be any because everybody would be worried about where the next king would go on a rampage. Would he attack my kingdom? What do I do if my neighboring country is attacked? and so on.

1. 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, either side can definently not make any legitimate claim to moral superiority. Anybody who mutilates their prisoners body's and takes their body parts as souvenirs is straight up disgusting. If anything the two sides should be competing for last place. If the winning side allowed the losing side's people to live in peace then that would earn them a few points. But in general, neither side can make any claim to moral superiority.

1. 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?
2. 
   

The Indians who took up arms against their brothers and sisters did what they believed they had to do. Whether it was right or wrong, It is hard to say. On one hand there is the loyalty and honor side. Those on this side would never switch sides because in their hearts they know that they are fighting for there own kind. On the other hand there is the opportunity takers, the people who look for the easiest way to success. These people know what they have done and they my not be at peace with themselves, though they did what they needed to do to survive. For these people, they saw that if they did not switch, then they would most likely die. In order to survive they turned against there fellow Indians. The made a decision that would provide the best odds at surviving and living to see another day.

1. 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 agree with the reviewer to a certain extent. With books such as this one's nature, the author, in a way, needs to be neutral on the subject. That way the author can write an objective book, with just the facts, without emotions or attempting to push the reader towards one side or the other. It is quite difficult for an author to write objectively. More times than not there will be bias in the 'voice' of the book.