In a message dated 11/30/02 4:42:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, chandler@firstva.com writes: > Muriel's comment about the Pilgrims and Indians living in > ***harmony for so long > Being a Mayflower descendant (Alden and Soule for me) is interesting.  But it seems to me that genealogists ought to be wary of the sin of ancestor worship which slants understanding of people and events and is invariably the death of scholarship. I think it is a stretch, for instance, to say that the Pilgrims and the Indians lived "in harmony" for an extended period.  Certainly, they got along with Squanto although, as recorded in Willison's "Saints and Strangers," the Pilgrims were nearly ready to hand him over to Massasoit for almost-certain execution when events got in the way. More to the point, however, are the numerous examples of how Miles Standish intimated the Indian tribes.  One example was the Massachusetts tribe whose leaders were threatening or, depending on your viewpoint, insufficiently deferential (pick one) to the Plymouth colony.  Here's how Willison describes the fates of Massachusetts leaders Pecksuot and Wituwamat: "These two and another brave, together with Wituwamat's brother, a boy of eighteen, were lured one day into Pilgrim headquarters -- by invitation to a feast, an enemy asserted.  Whatever the lure, the Pilgrims were quite shockingly frank about what happened there.  At a signal, the door was made fast and Standish leaped at the huge Pecksuot who had belittled him.  Snatching the latter's knife from the string about his neck, he plunged it into his breast.  Wituwamat and the other braves were done to death by the blades of Standish's men after a fierce hand-to-hand struggle, and even Standish remarked his admiration for the courage and strength of the trapped Indians as they hopelessly fought for their lives, saying that it was "incredible how many wounds they received before they died, not making any fearful noise, but catching at their weapons and striving to the last."  Only one of the Indians escaped being cut to pieces, the Indian boy, "whom the Captain caused to have hanged." Undoubtedly, Standish and company had their reasons for the behavior described above.  But, then, justification is common throughout history. Elsewhere in this thread, someone criticized author Francis Jennings who " > views all colonists as deceitful, evil, debased criminals who robbed the > Indians of their land and covered it all up with false documentation > intended to fool posterity. " I haven't read Jennings' "Invasion of America and the Cant of Conquest" so I can neither criticize nor defend it.  However, I have read his "Empire of Fortune" which examines how Pennsylvania was wrested from the control of the Quakers and brought into line with the rest of English America during the French & Indian War.  In "Empire," Jennings was such a strong defender of the Quakers -- whose insistence on treating the Indians fairly made them troublesome to the Penn family -- that he felt it necessary in his preface to deny that he was himself a Quaker. So, it is simply not accurate to say that Jennings considers "all" colonists as deceitful, evil, etc.  I think it is more accurate to say that he is knowledgeable about colonial America AND that he approves of some more than others. Mark E. Dixon Wayne, PA P.S.  BTW, the Indians who demonstrated in Plymouth on Thanksgiving could accurately be accused of grandstanding.  But their central claim that the arrival of Europeans also meant the end of Indian autonomy is also undeniably true.  It may not be the interpretation that many prefer, but it is accurate.

Nicely articulated. I especially enjoyed the caveat against "ancestor worship" and its potentially detrimental effect on scholarship. Soem of the earlier messages could be, IMHO, be interpreted as having an "ancestor worshipping" tone. While the pilgrims serve as an inspiration for me, and I am truly grateful for what they did, I am not nearly as enamored as some who've posted here. I have only read a few books (and countless other items) concerning the pilgrims and their beliefs and actions. It seems to me that they viewed the Native Americans as inferior beings. Savages who deserved much of what they received. As has been mentioned here at length, it is impossible to accurately judge 1620 action with 2002 eyes. I'm not judging Standish and his tactics. Or any of the others. I'm happy they succeeded. Absolutely ecstatic! But let's be real. The nonsense concerning "they didn't REALLY steal the corn" was a bit much. All of the complaining about revisionism seems to have no effect on its being engaged in by those who complain. Please excuse the late night musings of only one in 35 million. --- MDixon1918@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 11/30/02 4:42:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, > chandler@firstva.com writes: > > > Muriel's comment about the Pilgrims and Indians living in > > ***harmony for so long > > > > Being a Mayflower descendant (Alden and Soule for me) is > interesting.� But it > seems to me that genealogists ought to be wary of the sin of ancestor > worship > which slants understanding of people and events and is invariably the > death > of scholarship. > > I think it is a stretch, for instance, to say that the Pilgrims and > the > Indians lived "in harmony" for an extended period.� Certainly, they > got along > with Squanto although, as recorded in Willison's "Saints and > Strangers," the > Pilgrims were nearly ready to hand him over to Massasoit for > almost-certain > execution when events got in the way. > > More to the point, however, are the numerous examples of how Miles > Standish > intimated the Indian tribes.� One example was the Massachusetts tribe > whose > leaders were threatening or, depending on your viewpoint, > insufficiently > deferential (pick one) to the Plymouth colony.� Here's how Willison > describes > the fates of Massachusetts leaders Pecksuot and Wituwamat: > > "These two and another brave, together with Wituwamat's brother, a > boy of > eighteen, were lured one day into Pilgrim headquarters -- by > invitation to a > feast, an enemy asserted.� Whatever the lure, the Pilgrims were quite > > shockingly frank about what happened there.� At a signal, the door > was made > fast and Standish leaped at the huge Pecksuot who had belittled him.� > > Snatching the latter's knife from the string about his neck, he > plunged it > into his breast.� Wituwamat and the other braves were done to death > by the > blades of Standish's men after a fierce hand-to-hand struggle, and > even > Standish remarked his admiration for the courage and strength of the > trapped > Indians as they hopelessly fought for their lives, saying that it was > > "incredible how many wounds they received before they died, not > making any > fearful noise, but catching at their weapons and striving to the > last."� Only > one of the Indians escaped being cut to pieces, the Indian boy, "whom > the > Captain caused to have hanged." > > Undoubtedly, Standish and company had their reasons for the behavior > described above.� But, then, justification is common throughout > history. > > Elsewhere in this thread, someone criticized author Francis Jennings > who " > > views all colonists as deceitful, evil, debased criminals who > robbed the > > Indians of their land and covered it all up with false > documentation > > intended to fool posterity. > " > > I haven't read Jennings' "Invasion of America and the Cant of > Conquest" so I > can neither criticize nor defend it.� However, I have read his > "Empire of > Fortune" which examines how Pennsylvania was wrested from the control > of the > Quakers and brought into line with the rest of English America during > the > French & Indian War.� In "Empire," Jennings was such a strong > defender of the > Quakers -- whose insistence on treating the Indians fairly made them > troublesome to the Penn family -- that he felt it necessary in his > preface to > deny that he was himself a Quaker. > > So, it is simply not accurate to say that Jennings considers "all" > colonists > as deceitful, evil, etc.� I think it is more accurate to say that he > is > knowledgeable about colonial America AND that he approves of some > more than > others. > > Mark E. Dixon > Wayne, PA > > P.S.� BTW, the Indians who demonstrated in Plymouth on Thanksgiving > could > accurately be accused of grandstanding.� But their central claim that > the > arrival of Europeans also meant the end of Indian autonomy is also > undeniably > true.� It may not be the interpretation that many prefer, but it is > accurate. > > > ==== MAYFLOWER Mailing List ==== > Check out the web page of the General Society of Mayflower > Descendants at http://www.mayflower.org/ > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com

Mark sent this directly to me as well as to the list. That may have been an accident of whose address happened to be on one of the posts that went through yesterday, but whatever his intent, my recent posts could certainly be read, or actually misread, as ancestor worship. While I obviously find a great deal to admire in the Plymouth settlers, for the record, I agree one hundred per cent with what he has said in this message and admire the grace and economy with which he has expressed several complex ideas. When I posted a reply to the question of whether the settlers had stolen corn my intent was to show that while in our time we would see this as theft, they understood what they were doing as accepting a gift from God, and just as we do not hold people accountable for breaking a law which was not in effect at the time the act was committed we should judge the behavior of people by the prevailing standards of their time. The other side of this is that we do write new laws when we determine that what was allowable in the past was wrong, and this is the aspect which Mark very rightly accents. My mention of Squanto was meant to be largely in this vien. Squanto was able to let go of the past and act with justice and charity in his own present. I don't believe we can change what our ancestors did, but we can try to act justly in the present. I don't mean to try to speak for Mark and Muriel, but it seemed to me they are both saying that knowing the truth of past events as best we can will reduce the bitterness and recriminations which impede our acting justly today, and if that is what they are saying I would like to follow their lead. ***-----Original Message----- ***From: MDixon1918@aol.com [mailto:MDixon1918@aol.com] ***Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 10:42 PM ***To: MAYFLOWER-L@rootsweb.com ***Subject: [MFLR] Getting along with the Indians, etc. *** *** ***In a message dated 11/30/02 4:42:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, ***chandler@firstva.com writes: ***Being a Mayflower descendant (Alden and Soule for me) is ***interesting.  But it ***seems to me that genealogists ought to be wary of the sin of ***ancestor worship ***which slants understanding of people and events and is ***invariably the death of scholarship.