Morton Vs. Bradford

One of the questions I enjoyed discussing during last nights class was the idea between who is writing these essays, and who is correct. What makes history appear real to those who read about it? In history there are many different accounts of different events within history. His (or her) story is important in the world, and some perspectives are right on target while others veer away from the realistic approach to what happened. Despite this it is important to understand and hear the different views of each account. Although Bradford and Morton both had very different accounts of the natives, does that make either story less important? How do we know what is real, and how do we know what really happened? The way we can counter this is by reading and focusing on our own opinions about how a specific take on a story makes us feel.

Bradford appears less disenchanted by the natives. The natives seem "aloof" to him at first. Bradford didnt embrace the natives instead he prejudges them, and only until they prove themselves to him, by giving them gifts and helping them, does he somewhat slightly change his appeal of them. Morton on the otherhand appears fascinated with the natives. In chapter VI he intricately describes their appearance. He pays attention to them and writes about how "they seem to have as much modesty as civilized people, and deserve to be applauded for it". Morton has a higher appreciation for the cultural difference between the natives and the new settlers.

This contrast is important because it reflects the different assumptions and biases that are prominent in history. No telling is right, it just forms to the opinion of the person learning about the past.