Mary Rowlandson And The Native Americans Analysis

1. What does Mary Rowlandson's work lead the reader to believe about the Natives? Be descriptive (words, tone, etc.).
Her very descriptive use of language to describe what she witnessed was very good. She convinced me that the Indians were uncivilized, ferocious and brutal in their attack. She conveyed that they were also strategic, as she describes how they came in a large group and not only climbed on rooftops, but surrounded the house so as not to allow anyone inside to escape. She was very skilled at giving the reader her narrative concisely, starting with the time of day and the element of surprise and ending with describing the bloodshed that was left. She describes in gory details the how Indians, knocked people in the head and disemboweled them. The
His interpretation seems to be that this was a clash of cultures and a differing interpretation of what is normal. Nanepashemet’s tone seems to be that he wants to set the record straight. New Englanders were taking over and stripping them of their land, customs and traditions. The war was their way of putting a stop to the threat. In his interpretation of those events, Nanepashemet gave reasonable justifications from a historical and cultural perspective. If you see the events through the lens of the Natives, he attempts to dispel myths about why the conflict started. It seems that the Natives were angry that the New Englanders did not try to form a society that is acceptable to both parties. In his account Nanepashemet described what happened in a calm voice and tone. He gave facts that he knew which justified the war. His account was reasonable and rational. I think he tried to help the viewer see the surrounding circumstances of the event, making his account seem feasible and