Two sides to every story

As we have briefly mentioned in class, Catharine Maria Sedgwick shows us that there are two sides to every story. This is most evident with Magawisca's account of the English massacre of the Pequods, when compared to the English account of the event. We also see this in Hope Leslie/Magawisca's account of their secret meeting, compared to that of Sir Phillip's. It seems that Sedwick's message is illumination a deeper message than the simple"two sides to every story" claim. It seems that by presenting two sides of one story, Sedgwick is showing that, contrary to what may have been common beliefs of the time, the English and the Indians weren't so different after all.

The first piece of evidence that comes to mind is Faith Leslie. She is naturally an English girl, who grew up in captivity of the Indians. Although she has English roots, she "No speak Yengees" (p. 234) and despises English garb. But, as I stated above, by presenting both sides of a story, Sedgwick illuminates many similarities between the Indians(the Pequods) and the English. For example, in Magawisca's account of the Pequod massacre, the English are portrayed as heartless murders, while the Pequods receive sympathy from the reader. In the incident at Bethel, the roles are switched and Indians are seen as cold-hearted murders blinded by vengence, and the English are seen as the innocent victims.

Finally, the views different views of justice that the characters hold also seem to blur the distinction between races. Hope Leslie and Magawisca seem to share similar views of justice, even though they come from different racial backgrounds. Monotto (sp?) and a Govenor Winthrop (and other Puritan authorities) seem to hold the same "an arm for an arm" ideal of justice.