The case of Mary Rowlandson can become very complicated because it’s easy to sympathize for both sides. Through my eyes if I recap on history during the colonization I see bloodshed and war. I see how unfairly the English came and conquered the Native land, leading to a mass genocide (which just makes me upset and all the harder to side with the English), but looking into this small situation I feel like it all comes down to humanity. Yes Mary Rowlandson was a part of the English but her husband were one of the few who tried to make peace and take control. Also she was a mother with 5 kids, so I find it somewhat difficult to believe that she was treated the way she says she was in her narrative. I have this inner voice that has me convinced that the Native Americans were the good guys. Another thing I want to consider is that what if Mary Rowlandson’s narrative wasn’t all truth? What if it was exaggerated to make it seem like that her kidnappers were worse than depicted? The validity comes into question because of the monotonicity her narrative and she doesn’t specifically state any incident of torture from the Algonquians, along with the fact that she mentions instances where she is knitting clothes in return for food and other services. In ‘The Second Treatise on Government” John Locke states “It is also a state of equality, in which no-one has more power and authority than anyone else; because it is simply obvious that creatures of the same species and status, all born to all the same advantages of nature and to the use of the same abilities, should also be equal” explaining equal rights and opportunities for all men. As Thomas explained in his blog post about the incineration of 500 members of the Pequot tribe, it just goes to show that John Locke’s policy only applied to the privileged colonists.