History Smashers: The Mayflower. Kate Messner. 2020. 224 pages. [Source: Library]
First sentence from the prologue: You've probably heard about the Mayflower. Chances are, someone told you about the Pilgrims, who came to America because they wanted religious freedom.
First sentence from chapter one: If April showers bring May flowers, what do May flowers bring? The answer to the riddle, of course, is Pilgrims.
Kate Messner is out to smash all the myths surrounding the Pilgrims especially in regards to "the first Thanksgiving." Setting out to essentially debunk any overly simplified (or just plain old simplified) presentation of the Pilgrims and the First Thanksgiving, she succeeds in part.
I'll start with what I liked. It isn't as slow as molasses. It is actually a quick read. She shares quotes from primary sources and provides contemporary translations. The narrative style is relaxed, laid back, and kid-friendly. She seeks to always keep things relevant. For example, pointing out how some observe Thanksgiving day as a day of mourning. She does seek to give a voice to those that have been excluded in the past. As an adult, I didn't find that many new-to-me facts, but as a kid I probably would have.
Her book is not unique in its goal. Of course, there are many, many, many books about "the Pilgrims" and many of them would do the exact same thing paint a broader, fuller, more accurate picture of The Mayflower, the Plymouth colony, the infamous "first Thanksgiving." The problem is twofold really: 1) they're mainly written for adults and 2) they are as as slow as molasses. Seriously. Nothing will put you to sleep quicker than picking up a book the Pilgrims and the Mayflower.
True story, I've accepted half a dozen or so books on this topic to review through the years. Some I've just HAD to quit. There's no amount of stubbornness in the world that can keep me awake long enough to finish a book that dull. Some I've made myself finish but there was little if any reward. A few I thought were too outdated. A few were too modern. All had their blind spots. Yes, ALL. As a reader you have to be aware of biases and look for blind spots.
I don't want heroes. I don't want idols. I don't want symbols. I don't want villains. I don't want incarnations of Satan. If you're going to be all about the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, then there's going to be good, bad, and ugly. I am not one to say cover up the bad and the ugly. Nor am I one to say cover up all traces of good because of the bad and ugly.
We have a tendency to pick and choose facts. The facts that match the narrative we want to tell--that we want to present to the world all tied in a bow--we keep. The facts that don't match the narrative--that make it a lumpy, bumpy mess, that throw doubt on our story, or that simply leave unanswered questions--we leave out. History is constantly changing its narrative based on the facts we're including or excluding. I would rather have a messy presentation that included more facts than a polished up history where facts have been discarded and ignored.
The truth of the matter is that "the Pilgrims" were incredibly complex.
First of all they were HUMAN. Being human, they were prone to mistakes, to errors, to misunderstanding, to making seriously BAD decisions. They were capable of crimes--lying, stealing, murder, you name it. But that doesn't mean that they were terrible, horrible, no-good people every single second of every single day. Humans are--and always have been, always will be--more complex than the labels of "good" or "bad."
Second, they were all individuals. There is no one universal, uniform "Pilgrim" voice. Or "Separatist" voice. Or "Puritan" voice. You get any group of people together--even if it's small under a couple hundred--and you've got DOZENS and dozens of opinions and personalities, all in conflict with some tension. There is no "one" story to tell because there were many beliefs and many opinions. The Pilgrims weren't the BUDDY BEARS who always get along. Messner's text doesn't really acknowledge this or appreciate it enough (in my humble opinion). The settlers didn't always agree and get along with each other. There was bickering; there was conflict; there were power struggles.
Third, I think the Puritans/Separatists were misunderstood in their own times. I don't think the majority culture of their time understood them. I don't think they've been better understood by following generations. I think that no matter your time period, the Puritans/Separatists stick out as odd, strange, outsiders.
Fourth, it is hard to completely divorce the matter of religion from discussion of The Mayflower, the Pilgrims, Plymouth Colony. And our modern day culture is so far, far, far, far, far, far removed from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that it takes a lot of work and effort to understand the world views of the day--Catholic, Anglican (Church of England), Puritans, Separatists, etc. Plus our culture is FAR, FAR removed from the Christian world view in general. So there are cultural, religious, spiritual barriers that have to be worked through to read about "the Pilgrims." If you lift "the Pilgrims" from their time, their place, their culture of course they are going to look like monsters. Keeping everything in context won't make them saints mind you. They are HUMAN. No more, no less.
Fifth, the book doesn't take everything into consideration. No book can really. But you can walk away with the impression that North America would not have been settled and the Native American Peoples would have kept their land and everything would be all kinds of awesome if only the Mayflower hadn't set sail for the New World carrying Pilgrims. Even if England, Ireland, and Scotland had not sent settlers through the centuries to the New World, that doesn't mean that France, Spain, Portugal, (etc.) wouldn't have kept right on sending ships, setting up colonies, carrying on business as usual.
© 2021 Becky Laney of Young Readers
No comments:
Post a Comment