I believe the original intention of “City Upon a Hill” raised by John Winthrop has been controversial and has been placed into question since he wrote it. In America, presidential leaders, politicians and leaders in general use it to rally together people and make everyone feel like they are united as one. However, in Thomas’ post, he poses very intriguing ideas that I believe contradict what many politicians and leaders use “City Upon a Hill” for. Originally, considering the day and age it was written, Winthrop would most likely have self-interest in creating a new nation with religious superiority and a nation that only fitted his and other minds similar to his.
In Mary Rowlandson’s narrative she details a horrifying story of pain, killing and loss. She gave the perspective of a caucasian woman who was amidst a war that was damaging to both sides. Some people show pity for her, but others despise her. It truly depends on the people that view her story and delve deep into their moral compass to discover how they feel about her. I know, that this narrative seemed to have the intention to rise sympathy for the caucasian side instead of the Indian side, which doesn’t seem appropriate for several reasons especially because an Indian’s perspective would be very justified in reading as well. However, her ties to the war are questionable. She could be just another victim of war or someone who perpetuated it?
Some people try to speak for Mary Rowlandson and try to unveil the meaning behind creating this book. Some people believe it is a tool used for propaganda or it is a literary piece that is essential to our history. Either way, it depends on how the reader interprets it. No one will ever know the purpose for Rowlandson creating this novel, besides Rowlandson herself, either it will be used to fight both sides of an argument.