I decided to read the text of Bradford first, as Morton seemed to be more of a rebuttal piece. Bradford obviously followed the Puritan tradition of giving all thanks to God, and tried to relate all of the tales in regard to the signs of God and the relationship the colony has with God. Throughout the piece the reader is presented with a typology, the settlers as the Isrealites of the New World. They have to face hardships from all sides, and are constantly being tested. Despite being ridiculed and not helped at all by the sailors, they are good Christians and help the sick sailors in times of need. Despite the terrible conditions they face they manage to persevere and make the land fertile and sustainable. They are at the very center of the Devil's wickedness and temptation, Bradford says, yet they stay steadfast in their beliefs and maintain their side of the covenant with God.
Morton paints the Puritans in a far different light. His piece is definitely a response to what he sees as hypocrisy in the group. He does this first by touting the goodness of the Natives, showing that they have similar religious convictions as the English, and that they are not only industrious, but even seem to make Plato's idea of a communal society work well. They live in harmony, and the only interaction he gives is the massacre of many Indians at the hands of the Puritans. This certainly paints the Puritans in an unfavorable light, and as it has nothing to do with him, he presents himself as simply a reporter of fact. This, of course, is used to his advantage when he relates the relationship he had with the Puritans. If the reader already sees the Puritans as a savage and hypocritical group, they are more likely to side with him in an argument. Morton, however, doesn't seem to be the trustworthy narrator. His writings seem to be more impassioned, and more like a boy throwing a temper tantrum complaining of all the wrongs that have befallen him, a good man who is living and having some fun on the side. When comparing the two works, it would seem the truth likely falls somewhere in the middle, but the writing of Bradford is more compelling and more likely true. Bradford shows himself, and all Puritans as having flaws, making them more believable, unlike Morton who believes himself to be always right.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While Morton may be biased in that he is writing from his point of view about himself, I think Bradford is just as untrustworthy a narrator if not more because he is writing from an extreme Puritan bias that is very harsh about anything deviating from their view of how life should be lived. I think that it is more believable that Morton was a man with a good nature and generally saw Native Americans as equals and just liked to have a good time, than the view of him as an evil threat to society. Both narrators describe Morton through their own bias and I think it would be fairer to say that the truth lie somewhere in the middle of the two.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting how the two authors went about talking about the natives. Morton seemed to think of the natives as an interesting group of people, and seemed to respect their differences. He seemed to have a live and let live attitude towards the natives.
ReplyDeleteBradford on the other hand seems to think that the Natives, such as Squanto, were put there by God to help the Puritans in their mission. There also seems to be more of a labeling as "other" on the part of Bradford. The Natives were there to be used by the Puritans.