Mary Rowlandson And The Native Americans Analysis

1. What does Mary Rowlandson's work lead the reader to believe about the Natives? Be descriptive (words, tone, etc.).
Her very descriptive use of language to describe what she witnessed was very good. She convinced me that the Indians were uncivilized, ferocious and brutal in their attack. She conveyed that they were also strategic, as she describes how they came in a large group and not only climbed on rooftops, but surrounded the house so as not to allow anyone inside to escape. She was very skilled at giving the reader her narrative concisely, starting with the time of day and the element of surprise and ending with describing the bloodshed that was left. She describes in gory details the how Indians, knocked people in the head and disemboweled them. The
Indians showed no mercy, in her account. They came with their weapons with the intent to kill and maim. All the while holding on to her Christian faith the best way she could. It appears she wanted to convey the horror of those frantic moments and she did so quite well.
2. Viewing the excerpts from "500 Nations," how did the Native Americans feel about this same time period and event?
The Native Americans obviously have a different account of the events, not that the event did not happen, but that this account was justification of what happened and they were defending themselves.
His interpretation seems to be that this was a clash of cultures and a differing interpretation of what is normal. Nanepashemet’s tone seems to be that he wants to set the record straight. New Englanders were taking over and stripping them of their land, customs and traditions. The war was their way of putting a stop to the threat. In his interpretation of those events, Nanepashemet gave reasonable justifications from a historical and cultural perspective. If you see the events through the lens of the Natives, he attempts to dispel myths about why the conflict started. It seems that the Natives were angry that the New Englanders did not try to form a society that is acceptable to both parties. In his account Nanepashemet described what happened in a calm voice and tone. He gave facts that he knew which justified the war. His account was reasonable and rational. I think he tried to help the viewer see the surrounding circumstances of the event, making his account seem feasible and
justifiable.
3. As a historian, what could you conclude happened based on the textbook, Mary Rowlandson's work, and information passed down through Native Americans?
As a historian, my goal should be to give my account of an event as truthfully and factually correct as possible. My conclusion is that the textbook provides facts that can be proven, but all three accounts are probably true. The book attempts to tell both stories simultaneously. Mary Rowlandson's account was personal and "in the moment". Nanepashemet's account is told from a perspective that has been passed down from generation to generation. Both accounts leave the reader or viewer with other questions. Why was Mrs. Rowlandson spared? Why didn't the Indians pursue a more "civilized solution" to the threat? The textbook seeks to combine both stories and allows the reader to draw his or her own conclusion. I think the individual accounts are true, but how factual they are would be very difficult to prove. History can be anyone's account of events, especially when told from a first person's perspective. It is what comes out as facts to prove one thing happened or it didn't is what counts. Personally, I am more apt to believe your account if it is calm in tone and appears at least plausible, rather than if it is told hysterically and frantically. I do believe both accounts are at the very least partially true.
I found reading and listening to both accounts interesting. When I read Mrs. Rowlandson’s narrative, it was like reading something Stephen King would write. It makes me want to read more of her accounts of what happened while she was in captivity. I wonder if it is just as descriptive. Listening to “500 Nations” was interesting because it was coming from someone who was authentic, like how the book "Roots" by Alex Haley and later the movie was told. The book/movie gives an account of how people respond to threats to their society and ways of living, and the account is told from a cultural perspective that had been handed down from generation to generation.