Discussion question 15

One reviewer of Mayflower asserted that Nathaniel Philbrick “avoid[ed] the overarching moral issues [of his subject] and [took] no sides.” Do you find this to be true? Are there moral lessons Philbrick wants us to learn? If so, what are they?

Actually I do find that Nataniel didn't go into too much detail about the overarching moral issues and he definitely did not take sides. Instead he let the reader make their own choices. In my case, I tried not to take sides either and mostly laughed at how stupid the English were being at the beginning of the war. I do not feel that Philbrick established any concrete moral lessons to learn, I feel he let the reader learn whatever lessons that they wished. However, Philbrick did establish that the truth of the Pilgrims was not as glamorous as most want it to seem, and that King Philip's War was frought with moral issues. The thing is, that Philbrick does not go in depth into the moral issues, but just states that they exist.