Blog #2 – Pick a topic to blog
Choose one of the following questions and answer it by Monday, October 4th.
200 words minimum.
1. Were the Spanish just in their attempt to Christianize the Native Americans? Why or why not?
2. Why was there so much tension between the religious groups in America? Why were so many of them intolerant of others?
3. What are the risks and benefits of refusing to conform with society if you diagree with its principles? Do you think it’s worth it today? Why or why not?
4. How would our population be distributed differently if the Mayfower had landed in Virginia (where it was supposed to land)? How might this have affected the American Revolution (or would there have even been one)?
5. Do you think that bad people can improve given a second chance? Take into account the history of Georgia.
6. Why do you think religious extremists are still present in today’s society? In what ways do these groups compare to the Separatists / Pilgrims?
7. With the New England education system, independent thinking appeared to have been discouraged. What do you think this meant for education institutions back then? What must it have been like to have been a student back then?
8. What were the European explorers’ reactions to the unbounded nature of the New World?
9. If Europeans hadn’t settled the Americas, how do you think the U.S. would look like today?
10. If Powhatan hadn’t intervened in the fate of Jamestown’s “starving time”, what might have happened to the colony?
11. How did a person suddenly come up with a new version of Christianity?
12. Would people have migrated to America if King Henry VIII hadn’t broken from the Roman Catholic Church? Why or why not?
13. Was it hypocritical for the Puritans to persecute the Quakers, especially after they were persecuted in England?
14. Were the Wampanoags and other Indian tribes justified in their reasoning for launching King Philip’s War (to stop the spread of the English onto their land) and the death and injury of several hundred English men and women? Why or why not? 
15. Why did the Europeans treat the natives so poorly when many of them were helpful and peaceful at first?
16. Do you think Father Bartoleme de Las Casas’ idea to use Africans instead of Indians as slaves in the New World was a major factor in the establishment of African slavery in America? Why or why not?
17. How were the European explorers able to communicate with the Native Americans when they first arrived?
18. If people like John Smith hadn’t helped the settlers survive, what do you think would have happened to the new colonies?
19. What gave certain people or religion the right to pass discriminatory laws?
20. Why did the English monarch send Edmund Andros over to lead the Dominion of New England instead of appointing someone from the colonies? What would have happened if a New Englander had been in charge?
21. Often times, it’s been said that one leader completely helped a colony to survive; do you think that it is a fair statement to give one person sole responsibility for the success of a colony (Peter Stuyvesant, John Smith, Miles Standish)?
22. Would Americans have been as religiously tolerant today if the Quakers and Puritans actually had gotten along back in the 17th Century? Why or why not?
23. If you were Peter Stuyvesant, would you have given up New York without a fight? Why or why not?
24. Do you think the “visible saints” actually believed that they had been chosen by God or do you think that they faked it for the social acceptance and enhanced social standing?
25. How do you think American (and Virginian) history would have been different if John Rolfe hadn’t developed a better, less bitter strain of tobacco to export to Europe?
26. Which of the early American colonies would you have liked to have lived in? Why?
27. What do you think led Roger Williams to develop his “radical” views on religion? 
28. Everyone has their own interpretation of religion, so why does that have to affect the way that they live and treat others?
29. Which person that we’ve studied so far was the most democratic? How about the most aristocratic? Why?
30. Why do you think the Roanoke settlement disappeared?
31. What changes do you think would have occurred in the progression of colonial society if colonists were less hostile towards Native Americans?
32. During the African slave trade, how could African leaders have so easily sold other Africans into slavery?
33. If you were to start a new colony somewhere, what kinds of principles would you build it upon and why? Think about religion, education, government, philosophy, morals, etc.
34. How do you think a 17th Century Puritan would react to our society today? (Think of common behaviors, style of dress, religious attitudes, freedom, technology, etc.).
35. Which of the original 13 colonies do you think best represents America today? Why?
36. How do you think Old World Europeans viewed those people who left their country and headed out to the unknown New World?
37. Do you think Puritan women felt discriminated against when they weren’t allowed any say-so in law making or decision-making? Or do you think they accepted their role / fate as what God had wanted? Why?
38. Why, during the Great Awakening, did slave-owners decide to teach their slaves about Christianity, when they did not even consider them human beings deserving of natural rights (in essence, by recognizing that slaves have a soul to save from hell, it’s a recognition of their humanity – something that had been denied them)?
Meghan Furton
Question 17
When two completely different peoples met for the first time in thousands of years, it was no wonder that their cultures had also developed in complete isolation from one another. There was no way that the different languages that developed were even remotely related—and no chance that the Europeans with their supposed ‘civilized, superior intelligence’ could have understood the Native Americans, or vice versa. Based on what we know about the Europeans and their behavior when they came in contact with the new world, I would guess that they managed to figure out how to communicate when thy kidnapped Indians and their captives had no choice but to make sense of the European language. Squanto is an example of this. Also, translators like those that Cortes picked up suggest that the Europeans made no effort to learn the native language, but simply imposed their own on the Indians.
QUESTION:
Do you think that bad people can improve given a second chance? Take into account the history of Georgia.
RESPONSE:
Personally I don’t think that given a second chance bad people can improve and I feel the history of Georgia did a GREAT job of reaffirming this belief. The Georgia colony was established as a place to send the people in britain who were in debtors jail, these people were sent there for FREE, they were given 50 ACRES OF LAND for FREE, and they were asked for nothing in return just to get back on their feet and make something good out of their life. What did they accomplish, NOTHING. It is very difficult for someone who is naturally a failure and has a history of failure to all of a sudden become a good person and make something out of their life. After a while failure begins to set in in someone’s life and it becomes a mind set. It would be VERY difficult to break out of this horrible mindset and all of a sudden become a useful human being. People are MOST DEFINITELY products of their environment, as a result if you’ve spent your life living like a loser, and you’ve spent your life around other losers, and neither of you had a good work ethic; well your not all the sudden, or ever, going to become a winner and develop a work ethic. So to sum up all that I’ve said so far, No I do not believe bad people can become good people given a chance and I will end this with this stats for you to ponder about, I would even go so far to argue that this stat could be an argument all on its on to dispel this theory that people can improve when given a second chance: 61% of all felons are repeat offenders
Question 26:
If I had been alive during pre-revolutionary America, I would have probably lived in the colony of Rhode Island. This is a very simple conclusion to achieve from my point of view because I am a Jew. There were very few colonies where Jews were accepted, so I had very few choices of colonies to pick. One of the other colonies with complete religious freedom was Pennsylvania; however, I like to make jokes and play card games, so that is not the best place for me to live. Another reason is that Rhode Island is in a very convenient place to join in a variety of trades. It is nice because it is close to the ocean (which has the obvious effect of creating a port for commerce and trade with the Old World) and is next to a very large bay that could be used for many activities, the most obvious of which being fishing. Finally, Rhode Island seems to be a very pleasant place to live, compared to Puritan colonies, such as Massachusetts Bay, that had witch accusations and trials. I personally believe that being dead isn’t a good activity for a Sunday afternoon. I would much rather just sit around and play cards with my Jewish friends.
37. In answering this question in the United States in the 21st century where the belief has arisen that women should be granted equal rights as those of men (even if not always put into effect), I feel a strong tendency to answer with a firm ‘yes’; however, the answer does not appear to be so straightforward when deliberated upon. From the “modern” point of view, the answer does appear to be that yes, Puritan women felt discriminated against in their society; Anne Hutchinson, for example, openly advertised her own religious beliefs directly to the male Puritan ministers who wielded immense power in her society. This clearly shows that at least one Puritan woman felt oppressed and believed it not God’s will that she be discriminated so. From this, one can logically conclude that there were at least a couple other women who held the same beliefs, but simply refused to voice their opinions in fear of the male-dominated system’s backlash. From the point of view of the Puritans in the 17th and 18th centuries however, one might conclude that most women did not believe that they were being oppressed by men, and did accept their fate to be oppressed, simply from the fact that there was a male-dominated government and there were no female uprisings that we are aware of. If women had felt oppressed, why did no female ‘visible saints’ question the male dominated society in which they lived supposedly under the protection of God? So, in paying attention to both points of view, one supporting and the other denying Puritan women’s feelings of discrimination, I believe that there were in fact three types of women; those that felt discriminated by men and took action, those that felt discriminated by men but did not take action, and those that fully accepted God’s will to have them be discriminated by men.
It was extremely hypocritical of the Puritans to persecute the Quakers, especially when the persecution of the Puritans in England is taken into account. The Puritans were persecuted for having different ideas than the Church of England, and came to America seeking the religious freedom to live out their ideology. Likewise; the Quakers had ideas that differed from the Puritans. One would assume that the Puritans would identify with the Quakers in this way, and tolerate, though perhaps not accept, their ideas. The Puritans; however, banned Quakers from certain colonies and severely punished them for refusing to follow said ban. William Brend, for instance, was given one hundred and seventeen lashes with a tar soaked rope, which was the punishment for a first time offense. The second time, a man would have his right ear cut off, and upon the third occurrence a hole would be burned through his tongue. Eventually, a law was passed that declared that Quakers who returned to Massachusetts after being banned would be hung. Even King Charles of England opposed the hangings, and resultantly the Puritans repealed that particular law, though the ban remained in place. Shouldn’t a persecuted group seeking freedom and safety grant the same to others?
15.
The primary purpose for European exploration of the New World was for monetary purposes. Either Kings or Queens commissioned explorers, to secure profits in gold, spices or by claiming land for the crown. Therefore, while the peaceful Indians offered to share all they had with the Europeans, the greed of the explorers /colonists clouded all moral judgments. This can be evidenced by the Spanish conquistador, Hernan Cortes, around 1520’s he attempted to claim the Aztec city for the Spanish Crown, upon meeting the Native peoples, he was welcomed with open arms, yet as they showered him with presents of gold, he demanded more causing the once peaceful, hospitable Indians to attack in “El Noche Triste”. By pushing Indian culture away to make room for a transplanted European culture in the New World, this caused increased tension between the two groups and stories spread back to Europe about the savage ways of the Indians, even when they were caused to act this way because of the European genocide of their peoples/environment. So as new colonists started to come to settle in the New World, they brought preconceived notions on how to treat the Indians, believing the idea that all Indians were savages. The Native Americans outstretched their arms to all the new settlers at first, even helping to produce the first Thanksgiving in 1621, but once the need had vanished for this vital support, then also, the Indians would have to vanish as well. For they lived on vital lands that colonists desired. The Early Americans were superb con artists befriending the Indians with promises of cooperation, and then in a blink of an eye they persecuted their families and culture for the simple and disgusting reason of solely turning a profit and continuing to receive money from a joint-stock company or the crown. But maybe the kindness of the early Indians was not all genuine for as the saying goes “keep your friends close and your enemies closer”.
3. When choosing not to conform with society, a person can face a number of risks and benefits depending on the issue. When someone chooses to be different than those around them, they will most likely be faced with ridicule and discrimination. If someone lives in an intolerant part of the world, even today, they may face persecution for their beliefs. When someone does what they think is right, even if it isn’t accepted by others, they have a sense of pride. When there are a group of people who agree that what society is doing isn’t right, they have a better chance of changing the way things are around them. Today I think it is often worth it to do what you believe is the best thing to do because in society today people are more accepting of different views. Whether it’s religion, nationality or class, American society is pretty tolerant of different groups, though in other countries people may not have as much freedom to voice their difference of opinion. In America we have a greater chance of having our opinions heard and acted on because we have freedom of speech. People who all agree on an issue can form interest groups that have a chance to push for change in society. Groups can influence peoples perception of what is acceptable and correct in their community through media and sometimes even legislation.
15.) Although the Native Americans treated the European settlers with peace and hospitality when the settlers first arrived to the Natives’ home land, the Europeans still treated the Indians harshly, and eventually ended up fighting and killing almost all of them. I believe the Europeans acted this way because of a few reasons. First, they were used to a hostile and densely populated place where if anyone were different from one another, fighting and persecution would ensue. Because of this, they had a natural reaction to the wildly different Native Americans telling them that these people needed to either be changed or eliminated. Another reason for the harsh treatment of the Natives was that the settlers believed that they were superior to the Natives. They saw the Natives as uncivilized savages compared to the advanced technology and culture that existed back in Europe. Also, the Natives did not know god like the Europeans did, adding to the list of differences between the settlers and these strange new people. Ultimately, I believe that the settlers were so abrasive mainly out of fear. They saw the Natives as a possible threat, and having the benefit of technology and advanced civilization, the Europeans were not going to have any part of these Native Americans ways.
I do not think it is fair to give one person all of the credit for the success of an entire colony. Each colony is shaped by hundreds and thousands of people, from governors to large business owners to even ordinary settlers. In order for a colony to be successful, it must have many things. Just some of these include a form of government or body to keep and restore order, economic activity and trade, and a large number of settlements and people. Surely one person could not make all of this happen for a colony. There are many other people behind the scenes that also helped to shape the colony and ultimately contribute to its success. In Virginia, for example, Captain John Smith was said to have saved the colony from utter collapse. Taking control in 1608, he put the colonists in line. Giving John Smith complete credit for the survival of the colony is unfair to all of the others who helped shape the colony. Among others, John Rolfe became father of the tobacco industry and was a huge influence on the economy of Virginia. His work in perfecting the methods of raising tobacco caused a tobacco rush to sweep over Virginia and greatly increased European demand for the crop. In 1610, the remaining colonists dragged themselves onto ships bound for Europe, only to be met at the James River by the relief party and Lord De La Warr, who ordered the settlers back to Jamestown. Had it not been for Rolfe, De La Warr, and countless others, Virginia probably would not have survived. Therefore, to give all of the credit to John Smith, or any one person, for the success and survival of Virginia or any colony is not fair to all of the others who contributed along the way.
28. Although everyone has their own interpretation of religion different beliefs can cause unfair treatment and living situations, especially during the 15th, 16th, and even 17th century. An example of unfair treatment was shown when europeans fled England toward Holland in 1608. Unlike England, the separatist were now able to enjoy their own religious beliefs without being persecuted of harassed by the Church of England. Scared that their children would be “dutchified” they fled for the new world to start their own colony eventually landing in Plymouth Bay. As the years went by many other colonies were founded for religious reasons such as Roger Williams with Rhode Island, Lord Baltimore with Maryland, and William Penn with Pennsylvania. I believe much of the treatment Puritans used on others with different beliefs was out of discrimination and fear. When Quakers tried to preach their religion for the Puritans to hear many punishments were put upon them. I believe this was done because not only did the Puritans hate anyone who was unlike themselves but also because they were ultimately scared of the Quaker religion. I believe such regulations were put on Quakers because the Puritans didn’t accept the Quaker beliefs nor trusted them when it came to converting their Puritan followers. In both examples it is easy to see how religion can cause huge changes such as creating new colonies as well as discrimination and unfair treatment to people unlike themselves. There isn’t a definite answer to why people treat other religions poorly or look down on them as if it is wrong. It is hard to believe that even in our century people are still treating other religions poorly. For example, the Islamic religion in America is often feared by people due to the current terrorism. Event though everyone has their own interpretation of religion it has been shown throughout history that fear and hatred can get in the way of acceptance.
3.When choosing not to conform with society, many risks and benefits are involved. When a person chooses not to conform, they are mainly the outcast and discriminated against because they are not “the same” as everyone else around them. The ironic thing about this though is that many of the people discriminating probably agree with that person, but are too scared to speak their mind. A person who does not conform is usually stronger than the rest of society because they are staying true to who they are, and they believe in themselves. In old world Englad, the people who did not agree with conforming their religion, didn’t. They chose to stay true to who they were, and they left. This gives people their pride and dignity when doing this, because they are not being striped of their true beliefs. Today, it is definitely worth it to not conform to society. In the United States today, society is much more accepting of differences in people than years ago such as the acceptance of sexual orientation or religious beliefs. However, it is still risky in other parts of the world to not conform. For example, women in the Middle east or other parts of the world.
14. Were the Wampanoags and other Indian tribes justified in their reasoning for launching King Philip’s War (to stop the spread of the English onto their land) and the death and injury of several hundred English men and women? Why or why not?
I don’t think that war is ever an acceptable answer to solving problems but it is often unavoidable, and I think the Wampanoags were just in launching King Philip’s War. The English colonists had been expanding their territories ever since the new world had been discovered and they ignored the Indians’ land rights. Though the Indians had been relatively peaceful when the settlers arrived, tensions grew as they were mistreated, their villages were being destroyed, and the colonists were taking their land. The Pequot war in 1673 had failed and wiped out the entire tribe, but Metacom (King Philip) forged an alliance with many other tribes to coordinate assaults on English villages in the New World during his war. Several hundred English men and women were killed or injured, but it doesn’t even come close to how many Indians were killed in the grand scheme of things. They slowed down English settlement, but the Indians were dying out and disbanding which ultimately lessened the threat against English settlers. It was the Indians last stand and last chance at some form of revival after disease and colonists wiped many of them out, and I believe they had a good reason up stand up and fight in their war for land and freedom.
11. How did a person suddenly come up with a new version of Christianity?
I don’t believe that a person could suddenly come up with a new version of Christianity. I believe what happened is that a person included his views in this “new religion” and called it something else. People then started to think that these views made sense and started following them. I think it’s like playing a game of telephone in the fact that you start with one idea and end up with another, sometimes, completely different idea. There was probably some person that decided that they didn’t want to conform to this type of religion and figured that they could come up with one on their own. If you actually look at one religion and compare it to another you will most likely find some similarities or a lot of them with in the religion. This could signify a lot of thing like the fact that they were probably based off the same principal ideas. This could also mean that some one must have taken what they felt was important, or truths, from one religion and placed it into another religion. I feel that you don’t really come up with a sudden new version of Christianity but that a person comes up with a somewhat differentiated version of a religion and calls it something new.
In the United States today we have the first amendment which gives everybody the freedom of religion, so nobody can be denied the right to practice whatever religion they chose. Since everybody in our country can believe in whatever they have been brought up to believe, or whatever they chose to believe, they all of their own interpretation of religion. Everybody with their own interpretation of religion most likely feels that their religion is “correct” and that every other religion is not right. Some people who believe that their religion is superior even take it so far as to try and stop others from practicing their own religion because they feel that everybody in the world should believe what they believe. Since everybody believes that their own religion is correct, they affect other people around them who practice different religions because they are all under the interpretation that they are correct and are even doing the other religions a favor by correcting them and getting them to convert to their own religion. Some religions that are really strict confuse me the most, they have all of these strict beliefs about treating everybody fairly and being nice to everybody and then they go and try to deprive people of other religions by discriminating against them because they don’t believe the same thing.
3. There are several benefits to refusing to conform to society. Unfortunately, there are more risks than benefits. If you disagree with the principals of society, you are welcome to try to conform, but this might not work. If you disagree with an aspect of your society, and you isolate yourself, or you leave said society, you can hopefully be at peace. You don’t need to wallow in misery as you are forced to follow an unjust doctrine. You are entitled to yourself, and you are entitled to be different. There are, however, more risks in the refusal to conform to society, especially today. You might be persecuted, you might suffer violence, or you might just not be left alone. When blacks were segregated in the 20th century, those that fought for their rights, or refused to accept society as it was, were persecuted, or killed. The Amish don’t want to conform to our society of technology, and for the most part, they have succeeded, but parts of our culture have bled into theirs, and it is becoming harder and harder to remain separate when space is becoming the issue. Today I do not believe that isolating yourself or refusing to conform is worth it. You might be arrested for expressing your beliefs on the legality of drug use. You might be killed if you openly express homosexuality. I do not believe that fighting society and its principals is worth losing your life. Society today has established standards that were never meant to be broken or changed, and if you choose to fight these standards, there will be blood.
Question Number 30.
Why do you think that the Roanoke settlement disappeared?
In my personal opinion, I believe that the Roanoke colony disappeared because they died off, due to the harsh environment, attacks from the American Indians and disease. The colonists simply were not prepared for such a harsh climate such as that of the one in the new world, and I believe that the harsh winters would have killed off most of the colonists. Also, recent evidence suggests that the three years in which the colonists were at Roanoke Island were the three worst growing seasons in the region for 800 years. Another reason why I believe that the Roanoke colony died is that of American Indian attacks. This seems likely because the colonists had frosty relationships with the natives, having burned down an Indian village a year prior. The local Indians must have been quite angry with the settlers, and decided to attack the colonists after their means of escape left for England. Another factor why I believe that the Indians may have attacked was the fact that the crops that year were poor, and the Indians needed supplies and food. The final factor in the death of the Roanoke settlement is that of disease. A weak starving community, ravaged by continual Indian attacks, poor crops and harsh winters is especially vulnerable. Any mildly infectious disease would spread quickly and weaken the colonists sufficiently that they would either starve, be overcome by the Indians or succumb to the disease itself. A common theory voiced by historians is that the colonists had moved to Croatoan Island; however I believe this theory to be false because I do not think that the colonists had the necessary means of transport or supplies to reach the island. It is possible that they may have attempted the journey, however, I hold firm that any expedition as such would most likely fail drastically, as moving to Croatoan Island would be a last ditch resort, probably attempted in the cold winter.
Question #37
From the knowledge I know about the Puritan culture and their beliefs, I, personally, do not believe that the Puritan women felt discriminated against when they weren’t allowed to participate in the decision making and law process. I think that the majority of the women who lived in the conservative’s societies of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries firmly held true to the bible and their strict interpretations of it. They were, for the most part, faithful to the church and its teachings, and lived by those beliefs throughout their lives. The roles of the Puritan men and women were adopted through their strict interpretations of the Bible, which then became the basis for their cultural ideals. If the Puritan women did not abide by and obey the societal perception of the woman’s role, they would be shunned from their community. Since family and societal order were a very important aspect of Puritan life, I would think that many women accepted the way they were treated. I would also like to believe that the Puritan women acknowledged that it was God who decided their fate and made life the way it was for the Puritan woman for a specific reason for the afterlife.
15. The Puritans treated the Native Americans so poorly because people fear what they do not understand, and fear leads people to do terrible things. The Native Americans were not like the Puritans, so therefore in almost all of their minds, they were savage. Since the Puritans had no grasp of the Native American culture or wish to understand it, they were unable to predict what they would do, and this was, in their mind, an unneccessary variable that needed to be extinguished. When something cannot be predicted, it cannot be controlled, and so therefore the English settlers feared that their lives were in danger. Another manifestation of this concept was in the Church of England’s own treatment of the Puritans. It is extremely ironic and hypocritical of the Puritans to reject Native American culture for the very same reasons they were rejected–ignorance and fear. The Native Americans habits were also closer to nature, something that made them look like animals in the Puritans’ eyes. Therefore, it was easier for Puritans to justify extinguishing them because they viewed them as less as human. This animalistic concept that the Puritans tied to the Native Americans also caused them to take advantage of the indigenous people, and because Native Americans were so vastly culturally different, they were able to be duped out of their land and property. This initial mistreatment caused a huge mistrust between the two groups of people, making it difficult to maintain a peace. This tension seemed to only be able to be solved by a conflict–and the English settlers were going to make sure they had the upper hand.
8. What were the European explorers’ reactions to the unbounded nature of the New World?
The European explorers’ reactions to the unbounded nature of the New World were in significant contrast to the habits that Native Americans exhibited towards Mother Earth. Europeans assumed that humans had rights to the land and were justified, maybe even responsible, to alter the land to increase its profitability. The fact that Native Americans did not show even the slightest desire to modify the natural land can be perceived as a blatant contrast between arrogant, mindless Europeans and sensitive, honorable Native Americans, but this decision is also a result of location and resources. One of the reasons Native Americans did not change the land is because they did not have the technology to do so, such as the tools used by European settlers to till soil and harvest grain. Another reason Native American influence on American land is unnoticeable is because Native American settlements were thinly dispersed about the continent, and the impact of such few and scattered peoples cannot be as easily seen as that of thousands of colonists packed in small regions of land. Also untrue is the notion that Native Americans did not alter the natural landscape whatsoever; Indians often deliberately ignited massive forest fires to clear thousands of acres of land for better hunting habitats. So although Europeans’ mindsets might have been more negatively and selfishly centered, both European settlers and Native Americans altered the natural lands of the Americas.
24. Undoubtedly many puritans truly believed that God had predetermined their fate and were delusional enough to consider themselves “visible saints”, but it is also very likely that a number of settlers faked there encounter with God in order to gain social acceptance. If you are not a “visible saint” in the puritan society you were not allowed to attend church and subsequently could not vote, also, there is the underlining fact that if you are not a saint you are damned to hell. The incentive to be a “visible saint” probably caused people to flat out fake divine encounters or even made people claim that small random events were messages from God.
I believe that the majority of the puritan saints truly believed that they were saints because faking would get you into the church, but it would not save you from eternal damnation. Being brought up in such a strong religious environment must have made young puritans feel close to God. That, coupled with the fact that those who were not chosen as saints were outcast, was likely enough to pressure them into believing that they were chosen.
The Native Americans were very helpful and peaceful to the Europeans at first. They had been living on the land of the New World for many, many years and the Europeans were very new to the land. Since the Europeans didn’t know the land very well at all, the Native Americans were helpful in teaching them their tactics for survival. The Native Americans brought them food to eat, showed them what the best ways to get food was, and they gave them tips on creating their settlement. The Europeans were appreciative of this in a way because without this assistance they would have never been able to make it. They would have died of starvation or disease. But even with all the help that the Native Americans gave to them, they had come to the New World with a purpose. That purpose was to create new settlements for themselves and they felt like the Native Americans were going to get in the way of that. The Europeans wanted to create New Settlements for themselves that would in turn create a better life. As much as you don’t want to admit it, the Europeans had to end relations with The Native Americans to keep expanding, it was the only way. The Native Americans would have gotten in the way of the expansion because things were changing so much from their cultural norms. The Europeans started to treat the Native Americans poorly because they were trying to accomplish their ultimate goal of a better life in the New World which meant they had to keep on expanding.
24. Concerning the “visible saints”, I think that there would be certain people who would fake their being “saved” at birth and others who would take it seriously and follow the path that they thought they were originally chosen to go on. I am sure that someone who was not born “saved” would be treated as an outcast of society, and would be looked down upon. This person would feel left out and would feel like they do not have anything to live for. To avoid being separated from their community, there must have been some people who would have claimed to have been “saved” at birth, or at least tried to become “saved” at some point in their life. On the other hand, other “visible saints” would take predestination very seriously. There were probably those people who had to live with the fact that they were not claimed Children of God. These people might have been influenced by other townspeople, or even family that took predestination seriously. I would think that if a mother and father found out their child were not destined to be a child of God, they would try as hard as they could to keep that a secret, or change their destination in order for their child to have a chance at life. This might not have been the case though, because the Puritans were so concerned with following the teachings of their religion, that God and his word trumped everything, even their family.
3.What are the risks and benefits of refusing to conform with society if you diagree with its principles? Do you think it’s worth it today? Why or why not?
There were mostly risks than benefits of refusing to conform with society. If you belonged with a certain religious group, you could be forced into exile out of that group. For example, Anne Hutchinson didn’t agree with some of the Puritans teachings so she was forced to leave Massachusetts. Same thing happened to Roger Williams. He was forced to leave Massachusetts so that prompted him to set up Rhode Island where any religion could be practiced. Another risk was you could be harmed or killed. When Quakers went to protest Puritan teachings, laws were passed that would have their ears cut off, tongues burned, or hanged. One of the few benefits of being a nonconformist is that you were true to yourself and what you believed in. Nobody wants to go back and think how things would be different if I did…. I think that it’s worth it today to not conform with society because now there are laws that stop people from harming you. There are laws that allow you to say what you want and write what you want and not be punished for it. You can get that feeling of being true to yourself and not have to worry about persecution.
3. When someone disagrees with the principles of their society, they face many risks and possible benefits. When someone speaks out against a common belief of those around them, that person is bound to be ridiculed or possibly persecuted by his or her peers. It is also possible that one who speaks out against what is believed to be a common belief finds that there are many who share his or her views and that person may be able to make a positive change for their society. In colonial times, it was hard to determine if speaking out was worth the risk or not due to the intolerant nature of some societies. In modern times, it is worth voicing your opinions more than it ever has been. Today we live in a relevantly tolerant society with several interest groups. It is easier and more worth the risk to try to change society than it has ever been.
36. How do you think Old World Europeans viewed those people who left their country and headed out to the unknown New World?
It depends on which people the question is referring to. There are the first explorers who discovered the New World, the settlers who were seeking religious freedom, and the explorers who were looking to claim more land for their country. The first explorers and conquerors of the New World were probably seen as heroes and very courageous people in their efforts to expand their country’s boundaries and control in the world. They ventured out into a completely new place and survived without help or access to the motherland. It takes a certain kind of person to do what they did and succeed. They were also opening many new doors for their country. Now in regards to the religious refugees, the Old World Europeans probably saw them as nuisances that needed to leave. Old World Europeans didn’t want them there in the first place: they were infesting the country with their radical and foreign religious ways that could lead to rebellion against countries’ main religion. They were probably also cautious of them starting their own colonies that could one day compete with the larger, older countries. Lastly, the later waves of explorers that were just trying to stake claim on more land were probably seen as helpers to the countries. They were indirectly leading to countries becoming more wealthy and influential in the world. The land those explorers were discovering and settling on could lead to a multitude of possibilities for the country and its people.
4. It is interesting to note that some of the greatest steps in the history of the world were mistakes. Columbus set out to get to Asia, but discovered a whole new world. His mistake has been forever immortalized in the name he bestowed upon the natives. Thus, it is not surprising that the founding of Plymouth was completely by accident. This, however, was probably not for the best. Jamestown was an established settlement with a functional government and social order. All that the Pilgrims had was a hastily written agreement, the Mayflower Compact, in the unforgiving New England winter. Faced with these challenges, they turned inward and upward, developing a strict religious doctrine that would play a part in the development of New England for over one hundred years, for better or worse. Here developed a close sense of unity that contributed to the growth of American independence. This probably wouldn’t have happened in Virginia. The Pilgrims would have become enmeshed in the aristocratic south. The fierce American independence that began in the north wouldn’t have happened in the south, comfortably attached to Britain by trading ties. Colonies in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts Bay might have come later, but not until long after all colonization options further southward had been exhausted. Plymouth would have been no great loss, but an America without Philadelphia and Boston would not have developed the burning desire for independence that motivated the Founders to go all in for a cause they believed in.
5. Do you think that bad people can improve given a second chance? Take into account the history of Georgia.
I think that some bad people when given a second chance can change their lives. In the case of the Georgia colony the bad people had a very little chance of successfully improve them selves. The people used for the Georgia colony were debtors and many debtors are not in debt because of misfortune but more likely a poor work ethic. Many of the debtors that were given land in the new word fell into debt again. I also believe that certain individuals when given a second chance can do very good things with their lives. The idea of the Georgia colony was a great idea being that it helped give people a second chance. The idea failed because they gave undeserving people this second chance. They should have chosen people that had a good work ethic and would work to pay of debts and make money. In conclusion people can change, and the charity colony was a great idea but many people that were part of the charity colony did not change their ways. It would have been a better idea to attempt to reform some one with a work ethic.
In my opinion, this question cannot be answered one way or another, because people’s religious beliefs, societal standing, and social acceptance are some of the most nebulous issues in civil society and are never merely black and white. I think that there were most likely many pious Puritans who, without a doubt, believed God chose them to be saints on earth and who lived every moment in perfect harmony with the omnipresent beat of the Church. While they never intended to commit any wrong in God’s eyes, they formed the fierce and fiery Puritan base that was so easily swayed by fervid leaders—leaders who condemned all persons not saved and subjected innocent people, like the Quakers, to the Church’s zealous wrath. These hateful and greedy leaders nurtured the untrustworthy and scornful atmosphere that led many terrified Puritans into pretending to be visible saints. They were backed into that standard of perfection that befell the “saints” by the harsh demands of society and the knowledge that they and their families would be viewed as second class citizens if they didn’t pretend to be overcome by God’s power. Both of these groups—the legitimate “visible saints” and the frauds—played directly into the hands of power-hungry leaders that relied on the people’s faith and fear to fuel their aristocratic agendas. Clearly, while there were undoubtedly many Puritans who truly felt the hand of God in their lives, there were many others, forced into submission by society, who lived a sham life, in constant fear that the elaborate house of lies they had constructed would, one day, collapse before their eyes.
Question 21.
I disagree. All of the glory and success of the first colonies of America should not be given to a select few. For starters, I think that the brave souls who had the courage to leave their homes for their religion into a strange, unknown world definitely deserve some credit. If it had not been for them, there wouldn’t have even been colonies at that time, so I believe that all of the settlers, men and women alike, possessed leadership in the colonies. I believe that it takes a group of people to successfully help a community to thrive, and with the colonies, it is certainly the same story. The colonies were struggling in the beginning, however, and if it hadn’t been for a few leaders, the colonists very well may not have thrived, or survived. Although leaders such as John Smith were definitely a significant part of the development of the New World, there very well may have been settlers who brought great leadership and ideas to the colonies that have not been recorded, and we must keep those who have not been recognized in the history books in mind and not give all the credit to the big names in history, like Peter Stuyvesant, Miles Standish, and John Smith.
26. If I were around during the 17th Century, I would definitely have wanted to live in Pennsylvania. The main reason for this is that I am Catholic, and Catholics were generally only tolerated in three colonies: Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. Living in any colony other than these three would have literally been a threat to my life. I would probably then rule out Maryland as a possibly, considering the poor health, startlingly short lifespan, and persistent religious conflict that its people experienced at the time. This would leave me with two options: Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. Pennsylvania was one of the most culturally diverse colonies in North America because of its proximity to Dutch, Swedish, and Scots-Irish settlers and because of its initial acceptance of Native Americans. Since I would have been a Sicilian immigrant, this heterogeneous society probably would have been more hospitable to me than Rhode Island, which had a higher proportion of Anglos. Furthermore, Pennsylvania’s economy was booming during the latter half of the century, and as a result I would have had more economic opportunity there than in Rhode Island. To sum up, Pennsylvania would be the most attractive colony for me to live in during the 17th Century because of its acceptance of Catholics, cultural diversity, and favorable economic conditions.
35)
Out of all of the original colonies, Rhode Island best represents what America is like today. Rhode Island was declared in 1636 as a place for religious freedom. America has complete freedom of religion and many people immigrate to the U.S to escape religious persecution. Rhode Island was very liberal compared to other colonies. Many people in America are liberal. You had the choice in Rhode Island to be liberal or conservative as you do now in America. Rhode Island represents what many people in America strive to be like. People in Rhode Island were safe from ethnic and racial tensions. U.S citizens now have the same treatment. Out of all of the 13 original colonies America most resembles Rhode Island because of the pure religious freedom.
32. During the African slave trade, how could African leaders have so easily sold other Africans into slavery?
As horrible and abhorrent as it is, with the power of money and riches, anyone can be corrupted in to doing horrible and disturbing things, be it sell ones brother in to slavery, or feel the need to steal money from a corporation that could very well provide for a multitude of people. Although not as extreme, similar practices can be seen today, trading the welfare of someone you may or may not know for money, or power. so trading someone you may never see, may never know, who holds no importance to you beyond the fact he is another African, for riches, power, and weapons is not such a bizarre concept. also it should be noted that in addition to power and riches, they were also being offered this by someone they feared, someone who was able to do things that was -to the Africans- unimaginable. trading people you may not know, or people you may be in conflict with, to the scary white people that arrived on boats from places you don’t understand is not such a surprise. The African leaders wanted a quick buck, the Europeans wanted cheap labor; mixed with the African fear of the Europeans resulted in the African slave trade
Q: Everyone has their own interpretation of religion, so why does that have to affect the way that they live and treat others?
A: Religion affects the way people live and treat others because of each person’s individual interpretation. Some people are very to-the-book with their interpretation of religion, and believe that what the Bible says is what’s right, whereas other people allow more room for discussion and analysis. Using the 4th Commandment as an example (Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy,) some people take this very seriously and go to church or synagogue every week and follow their religion’s customs for celebrating. People with a looser interpretation of religion, however, may only have an actual celebration occasionally, while they remember the holy day in their heads. People celebrate based on what they find appropriate for their lifestyles, and this all comes out of interpretation.
QUESTION:
Do you think that bad people can improve given a second chance? Take into account the history of Georgia.
RESPONSE:
I feel if given a second chance people can improve. Sometime people can make mistakes are a put into a bad situation like the guy from les miserables. The situation in Georgia was an idea that never actually fell through. It was an attempt to help people who where in a situation with hard means of making money by putting them in the same situation in another area. It almost was just an attempt to humanely free up space in debtors prison. These people were put in an area with bad land and had no way to expand if they did succeed they couldn’t expand it. So basically they were suck in the same situation but had the ability to have a little more freedom. Now I’m not saying that everyone actually worked their hardest there probably was a large percent of people that didn’t improve. The fact is though that at least one person did better them self and maybe if the situation would have been a better situation than it might have worked. To reuse a statistic used early 61% of felons are repeat offenders well maybe one in that 39% was a screw up trying to get a slice of bread for his family.
18. If people like John Smith hadn’t helped the settlers survive, what do you think would have happened to the new colonies?
The contributions made by settlers such as John Smith aided immensely in the formation and development of the colonies. However, if such notable settlers had not existed, things may very well have been quite different. Many settlements would not have been able to survive and thrive because the settlers in those settlements would not have had many of the essential skills for survival. While these settlements may not have necessarily collapsed due to this, their development would certainly have been slowed. In this same way, the whole collection of colonies would have developed at a slower rate, though it is unlikely that the colonies would have been “abandoned” as the first Vikings’ settlements were. However, the colonies may not have been as strong for the Revolutionary War in later years, and may have lost the war as a result. Is it an exaggeration to say that the fate of America’s independence would have been changed had it not been for settlers like John Smith?
Response to Question #7
By Jasmine Berger
Independent thinking seemed to be highly discouraged during colonial times. Students of that time were probably taught things based purely on facts instead of for understanding. I think it would have been very difficult to have been a student back then because having differing opinions was probably discouraged. Having opinions that differed from the teacher was probably seen as disrespectful and students were probably expected to just believe everything the teacher said and not question them.
Educational institutions we probably very strict during colonial times. Classrooms probably seldom had discussions between students and teachers. Classes were probably mostly lectures from the teachers with few questions asked by the students. During this time there was probably only one way to learn and children who couldn’t understand that one way were probably referred to as stupid. Instead of offering other ways to learn or trying to teach certain students a different way they probably didn’t offer them any other help and wrote them off as dumb.
I wouldn’t have liked being a student back them because I really enjoy getting a deeper understanding so that I can form my own opinions. I also like asking lots of questions when in class and joining in on discussions so that I can share my opinions. I really wouldn’t enjoy sitting through classes if they were all one sided lectures with no discussion. I probably wouldn’t really understand much of anything that I learned because I get my best understanding when I get to learn things for myself instead of just listening to what others say.
Question 32
When Europeans first came to Africa they were far more civilized than the native people. They had better weapons and were more organized than the Africans, which lead to a clear European dominance over the African kingdoms. The leaders of these kingdoms soon realized that they had to become friendly with the outsiders in order to escape slavery. The Europeans needed people to work their large plantations in the New World so they captured thousands of Africans and sold them in to slavery. The African leaders aided them by selling other Africans to the outsiders. This benefited the leaders in three ways. One reason it was beneficial is that it allowed a Ruler to get rid of an enemy kingdom and increase its own territory. Another reason is that in return for slaves, the Europeans would give the leaders precious metals, but more importantly guns. Guns would allow them to better defend themselves against other kingdoms. The last reason is that the Europeans would reward their friendliness by not forcing that kingdom into slavery. The African slave trade was a rough time in African history, so leaders did what ever they could to protect themselves and their kingdom, even if it meant selling other Africans into slavery.
Question #5-
I believe that certain people can improve given a second chance. Much of it depends on how ad the crime was that the person committed. Certain crimes that had been committed in colonial times such as stealing, or not paying money to the king, were people who may not have been “bad” people in the first place. Other people, who may have murdered somebody for instance, may not deserve a second chance. James Oglethorpe had been very interested in prison reform in the 1700s, so in 1733 he became one of the founders of Georgia. Being the last and most southern of the original colonies, Georgia’s main purpose was to be a buffer for the prosperous southern colonies and the Spanish occupied Florida. Georgia had also been a place where “wretched souls” who had been imprisoned for miscellaneous charges such as debt, theft, etc. could be given a second chance. These men were given a certain amount of land to farm and run by themselves. I believe that the environment in England at this time, forced many of these men to do the things they had done to be imprisoned. Under these circumstances it makes sense that people should deserve a second chance. James Oglethorpe had noticed this and with his leadership abilities he was able to maintain Georgia as the “Charity Colony”.
Any new form of Christianity that someone comes up with is not new. Many other people have come up with or thought the same idea of the same religion that causes so many conflicts. These new “versions” of Christianity are just ways for people that didn’t like the old Roman Catholic ways to move over to religion that what they wanted in Catholicism happened like divorce or priests being able to marry. If one person thinks that this is good idea for a religion, there is definitely going to be others that agree with you and convert over. This person that starts up sect of Christianity will then be looked down upon by the Roman Catholic Church. The founder of the sect will then become the leader and the converts will like this religion until this leader tries implementing rules that his/her followers do not like and someone else will come up with a different sect to get away from the bad sect and the cycle continues. These new versions of Christianity will never end until everyone that believes in Christianity all belives in the same thing (not likely at all) or the end of the world comes.
Question #3 =]
In most cases, people who don’t conform are looked upon as being troublemakers. Despite this negative conception, we owe these people all of our thanks for the progress that has been made throughout history.
Even though many of these individuals are regarded as heros today, during their time they were most likely ostracized for their opinion. For example, Mary Dyer was a Quaker in Colonial Massachusetts who was persecuted by the Puritans for demonstrating spiritual conviction in the struggle for freedom in religious beliefs and for conscience’s sake. After being exiled from Massachusetts in the 1630s, she continued to return to the colony to share her faith and protest the unjust laws against the Quakers. She was caught returning to the colony several times, and even brought to the noose a few times as well. However, she did not stop until she was finally hung on June 1, 1660.
Mary Dyer was responsible for taking huge steps towards religious tolerance. Back then she was viewed as an overly zealous pest, but today she is regarded as martyr. I think it is very important that we recognize these non-conformists for the long term value they bring, as we continue to stand up for what we believe is right.
13. In England, when the Puritans refused to attend Catholic church services, they were imprisoned- and in some cases they were branded and had their ears cut off. They were not free to practice their religion. Because of this poor treatment, many of the Puritans sailed to the New World where they could live with religious freedom. When the Quakers came to their territory in the New World, they treated the Quakers the same way that the Puritans were treated in England. They imprisoned, tortured, and sometimes even hanged the Quakers. The Puritans detested the way the Catholic church treated them, yet they hypocritically treated the Quakers in a similar way. This shows that people often try to take advantage of their power. When they were in England, the Puritans had no religious freedom or power. Once they moved to the New World, they had all the freedom they wanted, which made them feel like they had the power to persecute the Quakers- the way they were persecuted in England. The Puritans were being hypocritical of their hate for the mistreatment of them, by the Catholic church. The Puritans came to the New World for religious freedom, but they decided not to share the freedom with everyone else.
14. Were the Wampanoag and other Indian tribes justified in their reasoning for launching King Philip’s War (to stop the spread of the English onto their land) and the death and injury of several hundred English men and women? Why or why not? The Wampanoag had every right to launch King Philip’s War. They killed and injured several hundred English men and women but it was completely justified. I would’ve done the same thing in their place. All of the Indians were happy, minding their own business, helped out the colonists at times and yet we still killed them and took their land. Ever since the new world had been discovered, the English keep expanding at a rapid rate. They ignored the Indians and if they got in the way then they burned their villages, killed them and took their land. The Indians attacked out of sheer desperation and this war was more like a last stand than anything else. The settlers would have attacked them sooner or later anyway so basically the Wampanoag attacked before the settlers could/were ready. Even if the Indians started it, the colonists definitely ended it. When you look at the big picture, the few hundred settlers that were killed by Natives was nothing at all compared to the losses that the Native Americans suffered through disease and war.
38. During the Great Awakening, slave owners decided to teach their slaves about Christianity, even though they did not consider them human beings deserving of natural rights, as a means of control. It was quite simple for them to manipulate what the Bible said to support the idea that slavery was acceptable, and the slave should know this was God’s doing, not humanity’s. At the same time, most slaves could not read, therefore any literate white man could tell a slave that the Bible said something that perhaps wasn’t actually there. They could tell them that slavery was actually a gift from God or that they would be sent to hell if they ran away. They could brainwash them into believing that being an imperfect slave was more than a mere act of disobedience, but rather a condemned sin. And who was a slave to disbelieve the Bible? After the first generation, slaves were raised with a family from birth. They were never left to learn other ideas. Obedience became religion. They were people, just like the Puritans. They wanted to go to Heaven, and they were taught that to get there, one must live a “pure” life of Christian service.
What are the risks and benefits of refusing to conform with society if you diagree with its principles? Do you think it’s worth it today? Why or why not?
People in history who acted against society in order to resist a policy, law, system, etc. that they saw as wholly injust were often faced with terrible condemnation from everyone they encountered and as a result became alienated from society; however, many also inspired at least a handful of others to join the dissenting group and help along change. Society cannot break away from immorality unless some individuals break away from it and inject a sense of morality back into society. Morality is something that, if forgotten, almost disappears. Without dissent, society never could change.
This expression of morality has always been worth it, and still is. Although the repercussions of rebellion have not changed much today, they have become far less extreme. As Americans, we have the right to speak out against something we disagree with, and while people with an alternative view often still face much opposition and alienation from their peers, they are bound to find their niche in a society with so many interest groups.
In colonial times, educational structure was far simpler than today’s complex arrangement of interconnected districts tracing their curriculums all the way back to the state bureaucracy. Schools were established for small towns by the townspeople themselves. All children in a small settlement would attend the same school and learn from teachers appointed by the settlers. The discouragement of independent thinking meant that schools were not only designed to educate students about practical matters, but also to instill religious and moral values of the time. Colonists certainly didn’t want their children to have any “odd” or “rebellious” thoughts concerning any aspect of life. Most early Americans put a strong emphasis on conformity and social or religious morals, hoping that this unity would help colonists stick together and thrive. This rigid structure in society and consequently in education likely resulted in a very restrictive school atmosphere that punished any challenge of authority. Being a student likely involved agreeing completely with all educational proceedings, including practical matters and other teachings like religious doctrine and social norms. Students probably asked few questions, hoping to avoid any admonishing from superiors. This lack of independent thinking would mold each student into the societal ideal, designing him/her to uphold the colonist’s beliefs and practices.
1. Were the Spanish just in their attempt to Christianize the Native Americans? Why or why not?
When the Spanish came to the new world they met Native Americans that they called “Indians”. These original inhabitants where polygamists and for the most part very respectful of nature and where happy in their current state. The Spanish came looking for gold and treasures and also to expand their power and domination. They believed that their religion was the best and wanted to convert more people to “save them” from hell. They in fact had no right to force their religious views on the Native Americans but did so anyway. Who where they to tell those proud happy people how to live their lives and who to worship? If the natives where unhappy and wanted the change then it could be considered acceptable but as it stood they wanted no part of it and the only thing Europeans brought where disease and war. This all leads to show that the Spanish where not just in their attempt, and where overstepping the natives human rights and those of their god by trying to convert these happy men.
Although it seems very hypocritical for the puritans to be persecuting the Quakers since they had just left England due to the persecution there, I believe it was not. The reason being that they left England in search of a place where they could be left alone to practice their religion in any form they like. Once the Quakers came in telling them that their religion was wrong and they should convert to Quakerism it was very similar to how they were being persecuted in England for having different beliefs. They just wanted to be free to practice their religion without anyone coming in and telling them they are wrong. This is exactly what the Quakers did so to protect their right to practice their religion freely in the new world they put heavy penalties on any Quaker who came into the Bay colony which I think were fair because all the Quakers had to do was leave and the Puritans would let the Quakers practice their religion anywhere else but the Quakers insisted on staying even though they knew they were going to be persecuted by the Puritans who had already settled there.
23. If you were peter stuyvesant, would you have given up New Amsterdam without a fight? Why or Why not?
Yes I would’ve done exactly as Stuyvesant did, simply because he had no choice. The way I understand it, the people of New Amsterdam didn’t care who ruled, and from whence they came, merely that they were allowed to go about their various money making ways as per usual. Not much has changed. Putting up a fight would’ve been suicide because not one New Amsterdam resident wanted to fight, in fact they almost welcomed the invasion. Stuyvesant probably realized this, and merely surrendered with dignity to preserve life and his remaining limbs.
3.There are many risks and benefits of refusing to conform to society if you disagree with its principles. The risks sometimes include violating the law of society. When violating the law the punishment can make the risk extremely big. In colonial America and in Europe at the time there were many religious laws that held a punishment of death if violated. People do find that risk worth it due to the connection they have with god. On a less extreme aspect, people face discrimination from society if they refuse to conform. They are subject to hate crimes, disapproval, or becoming social outcasts. The benefits are taking pride in what you believe in and honoring what you were taught by your parents and the environment you grew up in. If everyone conformed to society there would be very little difference in opinion and change for the benefit of society would be hard to come by. Today I believe that not conforming is worth it because it is easier to find different people you believe in your principles and with a large enough group of people, change can happen in this country. Also staying true to yourself is perceived as a good trait in this country you could lose a lot of respect when conforming to society.
Mike Hersch
Question 13:
It was very hypocritical for the Puritans to persecute the Quakers, especially sense the Puritans themselves were persecuted in England. Both religious groups were persecuted in England by the English Church, and came to America in hope for religious freedom. For one group to think that their religion should be the sole religion practiced in the new colonies is wrong and hypocritical, because they should come to America in hope of religious freedom. The Puritans treatment to the Quakers was terrible. The Puritans banned them from Massachusetts Bay Colony and punished them in severe ways if they tried to enter, sometimes even hanging Quakers that tried to live in their society. They thought it was just, because the Quakers were a group of people that did not follow the rules of society, they instead followed what they thought was right. Therefore, the Puritans felt that they should ban them from society so that they do not get in the way of rules and laws trying to be enforced. This point may seem valid, but it is this religious intolerance that was also shown by the English and disliked by the Puritans. This hypocritical attitude is bad, but it is exactly what the Puritans showed toward the Quakers by persecuting them in America.