Robert Luce mentions that the forthcoming film presents the common understanding of the Pilgrims' fear of assimilation. I think there are two aspects that often are missed. The first is that the set of Dutch laws published in 1619 made it necessary to register half-orphans (when one parent had died) with the Dutch Reformed Orphanage, and gave authority for full orphans to be removed from wider familial contexts to be raised by the Dutch Reformed Orphanage. Forced assimilation was an imminent possibility. There is no indication that such measures were taken against any Pilgrims. The rule was, in fact, directed towards the Remonstrants, a group that had just been ejected from the Dutch Reformed Church. But in this way the fear of assimilation did not consist in worry about the Dutchifying effects of children merely playing with other children. We have little reason to suppose that Pilgrim children had much opportunity to play with children not a part of the congregation. The second aspect is that the words used by Bradford to describe the problem are something like being afraid that they might "lose the name of English." (That may not be exactly quoted, but it's close.) Losing the name of English was a question being debated in the first half of the seventeenth century; and it had nothing to do with playing with Dutch children. It's a legal question as to whether the children of people of the English nation (literally born in England), who themselves (the children) were not born in England, continued to be native English purely because they descended from English parents. Did such children enjoy full rights under English law, to inheritance from their English relatives (from their parents'rights to shares in the colony, for example)? So, - were Pilgrim children born in Leiden losing the name of English? The point had not been settled, but it was expected that if they moved to English territory in the New World, the question would be settled ! in their favor. That remained questionable, however. At a later point, Archbishop Laud and his supporters thought about denying the name of English to children born in New England, as part of their attempt to rescind the charters of the colonies. Non-English couldn't claim rights and complain under English law and they might be denied rights of property in the colonies that had been granted to their English parents. (And here we have another aspect of what happened when Strangers (i.e. the non-English) acknowledged themselves subjects of the English king, and consequently of English law, when they signed the Mayflower Compact. They acquired equal rights under English law - but that's a topic for another day.) That the film presents the commonly held, simplistic view of assimilation, interpreting the concerns of the Pilgrims as if they were the worries of modern immigrant groups hoping to maintain ethnic cultural continuity, but without the very specific legal aspects of the 17th-century inheritance problems, shows in yet another point that film producers aren't historians and that actors, no matter how well trained, are also not historians. But I am quite sure that actors in Royal Shakespere Company costumes look and sound convincing. And Plimoth Plantation's actors have been acting as historians for some time now. Part of the charm of Plimoth Plantation's first-person interpretation is that it is convincing even when it is not historically nuanced. We can easily imagine that this is how things were because it looks and smells like we think it should. I'm looking forward to seeing the film, but I think I'll still finish my book where details and conflicting interpretations can be discussed in footnotes. Jeremy Bangs Robert Luce <[email protected]> wrote: >I am also one of the reviewers of the film. I think Dr. Bangs' >comments are excellent and definitely on-topic. Yes, there are several >inaccuracies in the presentation. > >However, I think the number and importance of myths that it dispels >far exceeds those that it continues. > >The initial reviewer talked of economic reasons being promoted as the >main reason to leave Leiden. This wasn't my impression at all. They >talked of their children becoming Dutch, speaking Dutch, and this was >worrisome. Also they mentioned the fact that the English had been able >to force the Dutch government into stopping their printing of >religious pamphlets that they had been sending back to England. > >They did decrease the importance of the Mayflower Compact, but I >anticipated that, as it has been a bone of contention for the last >decade or more. > >My main disappointment was the "First Thanksgiving" when they showed a >huge roast turkey being served at an indoor sit-down dinner. At least >they didn't show them using forks! > >I still highly recommend that people watch it. If it increases >interest in our ancestors and in Thanksgiving (and keeps it from being >overrun by Christmas,) I'm all for it. > > >Robert Luce >Chilton's Children Family Association > > >Sunday, November 12, 2006, 3:12:12 PM, you wrote: > >> Dr. Bangs, > >> I'm sure all would agree that your comments are not only on-topic (i.e. >> Mayflower related), but they are more than welcome, and appreciated. Any >> serious scholar of our Mayflower ancestors will also be concerned over the >> "minor details" you speak of, particularly when historical inaccuracies are >> "sanctioned" simply by being presented on the screen. Unfortunately, if such >> inaccuracies are found in this newest presentment, it won't be the first >> time. > >> Susan E. Roser > >-- >Robert Luce <[email protected]> > On ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur. > L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux. > -Antoine de Saint Exupéry > > > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >