Sunday, April 25, 2010

William Bradford: the Plymouth Co

I found this article somewhat hard to understand. I think it's the 17th century grammar.
It was very interesting how he perceived the Native Americans. He thought that they were Barbarians, and they stole corn seeds (though I don't know that they thought they were stealing, they my have thought that they were left). Finally, they accepted that the Indians were ok, and began interacting with them. In his article, he said, that they had a 30 year truce with them, even through the time that Mr. Bradford wrote the article.
I thought that it was interesting that they found out that free enterprise worked better at producing enough food and goods than a socialistic society. When the people were doing the work for the farm that they owned, they worked harder and the women and children were more ready to do the work than before.

3 comments:

  1. Taking the corn was of interest to me too. I think they knew they were stealing because they had seen the Indians in the trees.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I liked the way this article was written. Even though it's difficult to understand because of the old English style, it almost reads like a narrative. There's elements of plot, character, and setting in the way he told the story of the Pilgrims landing on Plymouth. Even though it's history, the style is definitely narrative. That made it fun to read.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I had some issues with Bradford's ideas--not because of the way he wrote--because he is only telling partial truths. He gave great description, lots of detail, and only one side of the story. He made it sound like the settlers were heros ready to tame the savage wilderness, but I think Squanto would have told a different story. I do not mean to take anything away from the settlers who came because, let's face it, I would most likely have died trying to overcome the obstacles they conquered, but give credit where credit is due. Without the assistance of some of those savages and some divine good luck, our nation's history would be vastly different. Bradford should not have called his account a "history" seeing as it leaves out so many of the details that would make it a true account.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.