Rkamradt1

May 2018

Hello, I'm Donner60. I noticed that in this edit to Pequot War, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I am taking the unusual step of removing my prior comment. I need to give a more thoughtful reply. Nonetheless, I think I should strike my prior comment because of your explanation and good faith effort to add material to the article. Donner60 (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Since I have replied both on my talk page and here, I thought I would put my whole response up to this point here by repeating the message I just added to my talk page: ":I may end up with a view similar to the one I put on your talk page and then quickly deleted. Of course, it is in the history. I think it would be fair for me to give this a little more consideration. I struck my original (template) message because of your good faith explanation here. I am still troubled by the dismissal of not only a recent account, but all previous accounts, including those of the colonists, as 'outdated.' I also think that crucial facts have also been deleted. You have added a little more here that I also need to take into account before I give either a very similar response or a revised one. I will do that as soon as I can." Donner60 (talk) 07:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The circumstances of the Pequot War were complicated Narraganset, Mohicans, and Dutch, as well as English and Pequots were all fighting with each other. Block Islanders seem to have been Narragansets ultimately opposed to the Pequots but the perpetrators of the Oldham incident appear to have fled to and been protected by the Pequots. Reducing the Oldham incident to his body washing up on Block Island and basing Puritan motives solely on greed is certainly too simplistic and not totally in line with the facts. Grandjeans conclusions appear to be mere speculations based on what she thinks their motives must have been and her downplaying of the attack on Oldham, merely that his body washed up on Block Island, is disingenuous at best. Here is what Captain John Underhill, one of the participants, wrote in 1638:

"The cause of our war against the Block Islanders was for taking away the life of one Master John Oldham, who made it his common course to trade amongst the Indians. He coming to Block Island to drive trade with them, the islanders came into his boat and having got a full view of the commodities which gave them good content, consulted how they might destroy him and his company, to the end they might clothe their bloody flesh which his lawful garments. The Indians having laid the plot, into the boat they came to trade as they pretended; watching their opportunities, knocked him in the head and martyred him most barbarously, to the great grief of his poor distressed servants, which by the providence of God were saved. This island lying in the road way to Lord Sey and the Lord Brooke's plantation, a certain seaman called John Gallop, master of the small navigation standing along to the Mathethusis Bay, and seeing a boat under sail close aboard the island, and perceiving the sails to be unskilfully (sic) managed, bred in him a jealousy, whether that the island Indians had not bloodily taken the life of our countrymen, and made themselves masters of their goods. Suspecting this, he bore up to them and was confirmed that his jealousy was just. Seeing Indians in the boat, and knowing her to be the vessel of Master Oldham, and not seeing him there, gave fire upon them and slew some; others leaped overboard, besides two of the number which he preserved and brought to the Bay. The blood of the innocent called for vengeance." Underhill's Narrative in Orr, Charles, "History of the Pequot War", pages 50-51. (Orr did note in his introduction that the colonists had no doubt given good cause for the hostility of "this savage tribe" based on an act that took place over 20 years earlier, however.) Nothing in Orr's collection of contemporary accounts sheds any doubt on Oldham's reputation as near as I can see but perhaps there are some other valid sources not based on guesswork.

Cave's account is no whitewash of the Puritans. If anything it seems to lean against them. Key facts from it can not be deleted in their entirety and replaced by speculations and a far from accurate or balanced recounting of the facts of the Oldham incident. I support this conclusion with the contemporary account that I just quoted. The mere fact that Grandjeans account is later does not mean it is updated or more accurate unless it were to affirmatively and factually show Cave was wrong or biased. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If you wish to continue to have the Cave facts and conclusions deleted and to get a different point of view from mine, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I don't totally rule out the possibility that some reference to Grandjeans could be made in addition to the Cave account, and with care. See the due and undue weight section of the neutral point of view article.

Thanks for your explanation and good approach to the matter. I hope you will keep contributing. Donner60 (talk) 09:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I put a very brief summary reply on my talk page and thought I should put the conclusion of that comment, about half of it, here: "I hope you...will continue to contribute to Wikipedia. I know how some early criticism can be disheartening but I also know it can be shaken off and many other later contributions to the project can be made. You are making a good faith effort to make a positive contribution and I want to express that observation." Donner60 (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)