You are not logged in.
Its really hard for me to get reading material here in Australia.
While browsing a local book store I noticed "The Mayflower" by Nathanial Philbrick. As the topic was bought up in another unfortunate incident I thought I would ask about the Mayflower.
The above book may be controversial in some way to conventional history and I wonder if anyone can advise.
As an Australian the Mayflower and the true story I do not know but as I had ancestors in that area from around 1635 I need to have a better understanding.I will check the links on the other topic but is it worth spending $31A on this book?
That is a very good book. It is definitely worth the money. No myths or nonsense in there. It's the raw history, and it's well written.
If you prefer video, I highly recommend The History Channel's DVD entitled Desperate Crossing: The Untold Story of the Mayflower. You can buy it at the link below, but I don't know if you can order a PAL version or what kinds of conversion problems you might face. But a good portion of this production is devoted to the Wampanoag point of view, which makes it very good indeed.
Thanks Jim that was all I needed to hear.
Ill have something to read over the next week while waiting for a couple of other books to arrive from the States.
Another project of interest to me is the New Netherlands Project. Papers of early Dutch New Amsterdam being translated at New York Library.
I dont know if they are finding any further information on the local native villages and people in these records.
I have only heard of Dutch correspondence so far but one would think that
there would be trade takeing place.
Finished reading ''Mayflower''and was a very powerfull read that opened many questions up for me.
Did any of the slaves return home.
What happened to those who were held as slaves in Providence Rhode Island and were some adopted into families by people such as Roger Williams who from all accounts was and remained on good relationship with many native Americans. It is written that those settlers that stayed behind in Providence during King Phillips War including Roger Williams were given Indian slaves as a result. Were these slaves people they were trying to protect?
The reason I ask is It is quite possible that I have an ancestor who cofounded Providence Rhode Island with Roger Williams and also I have seen mention they were quakers.This ancestor also stayed during war.
Wow, OldSalty, I have no idea how I missed your post in this thread from last Christmas. I hope you'll forgive my very late response almost a month later.
To answer some of your questions -- yes, at least a very few of the Indian slaves shipped to the West Indies did return home. If you're reading my Story of the Massachusett Federation you'll eventually read about one example around Chapter Nine or Ten. However, the vast majority of them died in transit or died shortly after arriving. The West Indies was a horrific place for slaves. There is little question that it was hell on Earth. But even to this day there are still many communities of people in the West Indies with strong Indian bloodlines who, if they were able, could trace their lineage back to those very Indian slaves.
Yes, those sent to Providence were indeed distributed to English households to work as slaves. There are no surviving records that explain the nature of the distribution -- telling us exactly how or why those Indians went to Rhode Island rather than the West Indies, for example.
The Rhode Island colony was eventually run by Quakers. They become the biggest political force there. Although it wasn't long before they denounced Indian slavery, there was a short period when even Quakers owned Indian slaves. I guess perhaps if you had to be a slave in Rhode Island in the late 17th century there was no better place to be than on a Quaker plantation. Quakers allowed the Indians to practice their spirituality and continue some of their traditions and lifeways, even while being held as slaves.
If you remember the site I identified called the Miner Farm -- that was land purchased by Quakers after it was stripped from the Indians. That ceremonial complex exists there because it was owned by Quakers in the early 18th century. That shows you the tolerance with which the Quakers handled Indian affairs even in the face of slavery. If that had been a Puritan plantation, those stone structures would have been destroyed.