Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

What a disappointment! The author goes out of his way to highlight the worst possible view of the Pilgrims. He almost ignores the fact that William Bradford was elected 31 times Governor of Plymouth Colony and during THOSE decades the "myth" of the Pilgrims was no myth -- it was true. Bradford was a fabulous leader and Chief Massasoit and Bradford supported each other in PEACE for all of their lives. The author is most critical of the Pilgrims decades AFTER Bradford and Massasoit were gone. He hardly mentions that Bradford for decades DID embrace our nations most treasured values -- democracy (gosh -- Bradford led with town meetings!), separation of church and state (no religious leaders held political office while Bradford was Governor), free enterprise (tossing the original socialist system overboard), and trial by jury (12 jurors). Bradford is the "grandfather of America" and all of New England, and many Natives, mourned his death. Bradford wanted a small community, and was OPPOSED to Europeans coming over the sea and grabbing land, but you'd never know it to read Philbrick's book. Philbrick suggests Bradford was naive, trusting the merchant backers, but he did so when there was no choice. Why did Philbrick omit the examples of Bradford's shrewdness ... when he personally uncovered a plot to overthrow Plymouth and exposed the plotters... or when the King sent a new governor and some at Plymouth wanted to overthrow the man, but Bradford wisely and correctly waited the man out, saying, "Governor Gorges hates it here, and he'll soon return to England" (which he did)? He omitted 90% of the positive facts about Bradford and the Pilgrims during the Bradford years. Philbrick makes a big deal of the Pilgrims stealing seed corn from the Natives. But they had just landed in the New World, had heard nothing but horror stories about the savages, and .. by the way ... after meeting and making peace with the Natives, PAID them back. The author mentions Bradford taking the helm of a fishing boat, but downplays his heroism -- the colony was about to starve and no one else would said the ship, so Bradford sailed into tracherous waters, at great personal risk (and with success). Bradford enabled the New World to become the United States. No Bradford, no US. The author seems to think it was easy for the Pilgrims and the many non-Pilgrims on the Mayflower to form a peaceful community; even after describing all the failed colonies, Philbrick hardly gives Bradford credit for building the houses, government, legal system, economic system, judiciary, and foreign relations. But Bradford pulled off a miracle, and he did it with courage, humility, tolerance, brilliance, honesty, and respect (of Natives and of the colonists who elected him 31 times). Plymouth was overrun by Puritans who, under Winthrop, was a nasty theocracy. The author criticizes Bradford's intolerance, yet he opened the doors to Quakers and others persecuted elsewhere. True -- he didn't want the Quakers to stay, becuase they were disruptive )stripping naked and screaming during their church services). But Philbrick doesn't mention this. This Week magazine, in the current issue, gives a scathing review of Philbrick, saying his history was unscholarly, and for some reason he calls a "hero" the white man who chopped the Indian leader into 4 parts. My criticism is that the author must have deliberately wanted to do a politically correct "hatchet job" on the Pilgrims, downplaying the wonderful human values and leadership strengths of Bradford, implying that he was responsible for evils by the colonists long after he left office. Philbrick pretends to be a historian, when in fact he deliberately ommitted positives in order to do his version of scalping the Pilgrims. Dr. B. Smart