Jara and Adriana:

The narrative is more of a story, whereas the speech consists more of commands. The speech is direct dialogue from God, but the narrative is a personal insight into what the narrator thinks God is. The narrative is more detailed and opinionated.

The narrative shapes American identity by giving readers an idea of how the people found comfort in a time of conflict. Similar narratives today include stories about kidnappings. Modern examples, such as the Disney version of Pocahontas, show a gentler side of the tension.

Josh and Kyle

#1 - Mary R. is a white settle so we can assume she already speaks and writes in English. Plus it is terrible so it is the old English of the time. However, the Pontiac speech was not given in English. Someone who speaks the language of the natives would need to write down or translate the speech to English. As we know, many things get changed or lost in translation.

#2 - Mary wants peace because she does not want her family and her people constantly getting slaughtered. Yet, the natives speak to their "God" and he says to make war on them.

#3 - The white settlers would sell stuff like weapons, powers, sweetcorn, tobacco, and alcoholic stuff to the natives. Yet, the natives' God says that all the animals retreat into the French lands so the are to rely on the French for food and sustenance. The God did not like this because they moved away from bow and arrow to gun and could not manufacture the necessary items themselves.

#4 - The cycle of violence is basically when the whites would get captured and would have the military come in and rescue if they could even find them. This is constantly going over and over. They both most likely structured it in their mind that they were the victims. The natives just wanted their land back but the whites thought they were entitled to it all.

#5 - It is basically just the natives' perspective to what was happening. There are two sides to the stories so the speeches are the natives' perspective.

#6 - Since the white Europeans have discovered the Americas. We have constantly been expanding. We thought it was our destiny to go west and it didn't matter what was in our way. It just so happened that the natives were in our way. These removes and speeches are in our history because it is literally what decided how our country came to be, at least land wise. Anything that has to do with the native people within the border of modern USA helps create our identity. The American identity relies on war.

Answers for Jordan and I:
1. Yes there is questions of authenticity because the speech could be passed down through many generations and some of the details of the speech could be exaggerated more than they actually are. Both of the speeches were not spoken in English, but were translated to English after they had been given in a Native American language.
2. Both speakers reference God through out the speech using him as a way to get peace.
3. In Pontiac, God referred to needing the "whites" and "guns" and " gun powder", but with those resources come with Conflict and God said that was not needed and to live by the land just like they did before the white man came.
4. In both speeches we see violence throughout and also when there is violence there is always someone calling out to God for survival.
5. The Both have Native Americans that show violence through out the whole speech and also portray god throughout the whole speech as well.
6. Most of the time there is contact from each group to another, there is conflict throughout history because the "Whites" were always viewed as taking the Natives land.

Alexis and Shekinah
Yes, both texts were written centuries ago and likely were altered somewhat through out that time period. Mary Rowlandson's narrative is likely the more authentic of the two texts because it was written in her own hand before print. The speech on the other hand was not written in English but an Indian language and was later translated, some of the text was likely altered or lost during this translation.

Mary Rowlandson's narrative talks about her waiting for a sign from god to know when it was time to leave, and she decided to live in peace and coexist with her captors until such time was upon her. The speech talked of not relying on each other for survival, but said for the Indians to go back to their traditional roots and still pray to god. It encouraged them to coexist and be neighborly with the white man, and to live in peace with them.

Mary Rowlandson's narrative spoke of how god always provided food for her captors, how they always found nuts or berries to eat and were always provided for. None of the Indians died over starvation, they found their resources in the wild and used them to survive. The speech asks for them to coexist with the white man, but to not relay on them for all of their needs. It tells them to get back to their traditional roots and hunt for their food.

In the speech the Indians were told they didn't need the guns of the white man, that they should go back to the way they used to and use their bow and arrows for their defense and hunting purposes.

Both the speech and Mary Rowlandson's narrative use god as an explanation for all things. In the narrative god asks Mary to wait to go home and god is putting her through her trials. In the speech it tells of how god effected the Indians hunting and why he did so. With both of these the characters are put through a trial and almost made example of.

Katelyn and Carah

>Is there any question of the authenticity of these speeches? Which ones and why? Why do the literary filters matter?
- Yes, both of them because throughout the years and different versions of these occurrences could have been lost ion translation from their original language to English.
>What do these speakers say about peace and coexistence?
- In Mary Rowlandson's point of view, she believed that the Indians and her people could coexist somewhat peacefully, but in the Pontiac's speech, they believed that God was telling them to start a war with the people that were going to do bad things to their land. therefore, the Indians and the common people couldn't coexist peacefully.
>What do these speakers say about conflict over resources?
- The Pontiac basically said that God told Loup He took the animals because the new people (English settlers?) came and he said He would bring them back if the Indians would no longer use their resources.
>What do these speakers say about cycles of violence?
- There was violence in the Mary Rowlandson story in the beginning when the Indians were overtaking their village. the Pontiac story says to start violence only if the people do not do good to their land.
>How do these speeches relate to Mary Rowlandson's narrative?
- They both deal with Indian accounts.
>How does this contact and conflict become a part of American identity?
- For years, we have heard how the Indians have been treated badly throughout history.

Yaira Mota, Precious Hanes, Alan Bowen, Aireon Leary, Tony Hood, Tracey Parker.
1. The Mary Rowlandson paper they would keep her ideas because she us European and it tells her story about the native Americans are savages. And for the Pontiac speech you have to question the authenticity because of the European that wrote it down could put his agenda into it.
2. In the Pontiac passage it says you can coexist can be friendly and good but the ones that's are trying to take your land should be killed. Mary Rowlandson paper shows coexistence because even though they killed everyone it shows they can coexist because the Native Americans show sympathy for Mary.
3. In the Pontiac version, It says, "I know that the people you call the Children of your Great Father5 supply your needs, but if you were not evil, as you are, you would do without them and you could live just as you lived before you met them".
4.
5.
6.

1. Mrs. Mary Rowlandson’s speech is more authentic due to the pure raw emotions of the reading, hence she wrote her story herself. Nonetheless, the Pontiac Speech is less authentic since it was most likely written and spoken by an Indian; however, the text is in English. We can assume it was translated into English.
2. Mrs. Mary Rowlandson towards the end of The Twentieth Remove states, “That we must rely on God Himself, and our whole dependence must be upon Him.” That clearly states he is the ultimate peacemaker, she wraps herself on his hands to be protected by the experience she endured. Thus, we must assume as well that at the end he coincides all. Furthermore, in the Pontiac Speech the Indians always have to protect themselves. As we know throughout history they will attack if they do not believe they are in peace and or coinciding with white settlers.
3. For Mrs. Mary Rowlandson even though she passed through various obstacles during her experience with the Indians her resource is Him. Thus, she will get released from the conflict with her religious beliefs. In the Pontiac Speech at times the resources caused the conflicts since that is what the white settlers traveled across the sea for.
6. American identity overall is categorized on how you reflect yourself with the past. Do you believe the same beliefs as those that wrote the constitution? Both stories portray a great portion of our history from the past. From Mrs. Mary Rowlandson’s experience with the Indians to the Pontiac speaker speaking of faith at an early age.

Dagoberto and Cameron