Interesting insight on daily Plymouth life which is, unfortunately , marred by historical inaccuracies. The text presents several pieces of the US national myth as fact, not legend. Tonally, it targets a juvenile audience, so the question at hand is whether or not to use this nonfiction delivery of fictional content with our son...
First, the good: life in a Plymouth household is described vividly, and there is loads of new vocabulary. What's the difference between a noggin, a tankard and a blackjack? This book will tell you.
Now to my notes on issues...
p 107: Their voyage itself was an act of amazing courage. When the Mayflower sailed for America, the Pilgrims knew less about their destination than our astronauts did when they blasted off for the moon.
I begin with the end, because this claim clashes with several other details of the Saints voyage & outpost as described within the text of this book, some of which I've noted below. It's a very patriotic American thing to say, but not accurate.
p 19: And they found an Indian corn field. At one side was a heap of sand. Digging there, the Pilgrims made an interesting and valuable discovery: baskets of dried, many-colored Indian corn.
The kernels would make good seeds, so the Pilgrims kept them to plant in the Spring.
This is conscious theft. Imagine you're wandering around, see rows of corn growing, and a big mound off to the side. Hmmm... what's in there? You don't dig it up unless you expect to find treasure of some kind -- monetary or dietary. For all you know (see the above claim about lack of knowledge), it could be a house for killer beasties, right? The only possible reason to mess with an unknown mound right next to obvious farmland is that you expect to find something good... the Plymouth colonists did that, found the store of seed for next year's planting, and then they stole it.
The problem is not with recounting this event in the book, but with the tone taken around it. The book plays this as a stroke of luck, rather than an ethical dilemma: steal or starve? Given America's strong feelings about private property, the tone here is a real problem for me.
p 20: Best of all, some of the land had already been cleared by the Indians and was ready for planting. The settlers wouldn't have to waste time burning or chopping the thick forest. They would be able to plant their seeds as soon as spring came.
"Best of all!" Again, a tonal problem. I assume the locals had cleared this land for some purpose... what was that, I wonder? The book doesn't even try to consider what the Native perspective would be on newcomers taking over land they had been working themselves. Again -- given our passionate emotions around private property, shouldn't the ethics of this be examined, however briefly?
p 23-24: The crew of the Mayflower helped the Pilgrims drag six cannons up from the ship. It was hard work. The largest of the guns was ten feet long and weighed almost a ton. Even the ammunition was heavy. The cannons fired big iron balls.
The Pilgrims mounted the guns on their gun platform and pointed them in different directions. Now they hoped they would be able to defend themselves against the Indians.
They were becoming more and more afraid of an Indian attack."
Gosh, I can't imagine why...
Sarcasm aside, I share this passage as further rebuttal to the first quote. Think of the weight. You're going to an utterly unknown place, an apparently empty land, but you prioritize *cannons* over extra food supplies. Doesn't add up! You don't hunt with cannons, you hunt with guns. Cannons are war machines for blowing up people and horses and vehicles and towns. It's pretty obvious the colonists knew they would encounter humans, and that those humans must be eating something. They came with the intent to carve out a town at the expense of people who they knew already lived there.
p 31: Governor Bradford sent four men out to shoot wild birds, and they returned with ducks, geese, and turkeys..."
But Massasoit understood. He sent his best hunters into the woods. The braves brought back five deer and gave them to the Pilgrims.
I'm not going to delve into the myth of the First Thanksgiving except to say that my understanding of records is that the turkey is not actually mentioned in the colonist sources, but Wampanoag oral tradition says they contributed deer and wild turkey. A tiny detail, not a showstopper in itself but it's a another straw to the pile.
p 34: This whole page is about single room living in the Plymouth colony. It's too long to excerpt here, but again I have issues not with the facts but with how they are delivered.
I hate how one-room housing sounds rare in this section. Many (most?) families all over the world (including the British Isles) have lived in & slept in single-room houses for all human history. I like our multi-room apartment very much, but do we need to play this one-room housing out like some unusual sacrifice, undertaken only by "Pilgrims"? Besides, the body heat would've helped for sleeping during those cold New England winters... way better situation than separate rooms.
p 36: Pilgrim women made rushlights. A rush is a kind of thick grass with a hollow stem.
One end of the rush was dipped into bear grease or moose fat. The other end was stuck between the bricks of the fireplace. Then the greasy end was set on fire.
Suddenly, less than a year after starvation, these cats have bricks? That doesn't seem right... a brickworks is a major undertaking. How did this happen, and when? It would be interesting to know more details about how this was achieved (local brickworks, or imported, or brought with them on the Mayflower, or what?). Another challenge with this book is that the duration of time that passes is not clear.
p 59: The Pilgrims loved spicy food. Back home in England, people sometimes used five or six spices to flavor one dish. Pepper, mace, cloves, cinnamon, cardamon [sic], and ginger were their favorites.
None of these spices come from England. Given imperial holdings of the spice islands were mostly Dutch, I suspect these personal tastes were developed during their time in Holland? But I'm not sure, and the book makes no mention of the broader [imperial] context to "Pilgrim" tastes. That's unfortunate. There was a lot going on in the world, much of which impacted these colonists' decisions, but like so many sources this book excludes that context in favor of a focus on individualism or bravery... the result is a terrible misunderstanding of US and world history.
Later, the book mentions Plymouth colonists trading with West Indies colonists for these spices as well as molasses and sugar. No mention at all about who was growing and processing these spices and sugars...
p 79: Some poor people didn't have wooden trenchers. Instead, they used pieces of stale bread as plates. They put the food on top. Then, after they had eaten the food, they ate the bread plates!
I hate this passage. I hate it! There are places in the world where eating the plate is a norm, not a sign of poverty. And isn't eating the plate the ultimate example of "Pilgrim" simplicity? (Also, when did they get prosperous enough to bake enough bread there would be leftovers?)
Because of these several issues, I can't really recommend the book for juvenile audiences... but the passages on daily life as a Plymouth colonist *are* interesting and informative. Maybe there is a newer text which has the informative without the inaccurate?