Mary Rowlandson’s narrative exposes many truths difficult for the modern reader to sympathize with or understand. Elements of racism, genocide, sexism, and intolerance, added to the beliefs she holds about God’s plan, make interpreting Rowlandson’s narrative in any one way impossible. While it is easy, and maybe even best, to pass judgment on Mary Rowlandson and the people of her time for their extreme ignorance, unnecessary violence, and uncalled for hostility, there are more emotions at play here than simple negativity. Mary Rowlandson comes from England and is filled with the beliefs of Puritanism, just like John Winthrop was not too long before her. The difference between the two, however, is that Rowlandson does not appear to place herself above the Native Americans as being an example of purity and perfection. In fact, Mary Rowlandson sees her many flaws and believes that it is God’s plan for her to suffer, placing no blame upon the tribe even in the face of the deaths of her young daughter, sister, and nephew. She does not cause suffering among the Native Americans or act as though that is what she wishes for them. John Winthrop’s “City Upon a Hill” had no space for anyone but the purest Puritans. He dreamed of a city of white supremacist patriarchal preaching elitists whose only concern was for themselves and their own profits. Rowlandson’s view of her world is not the same as his. Challenging the ideas that Native Americans are less than the English, Rowlandson shows respect to both her master and King Philip. She is not ashamed to beg for charity from those who are different from her, and she trusts that they will not kill her or the other prisoners when they tell her they won’t. Even though she is revolted by their bloodlust and celebration after murdering many Englishmen, Mary Rowlandson does not confront the Natives with her beliefs. She seems to understand their position and how her own captivity is not what they want either. An ongoing struggle she acknowledges is the shifting between kindness and hostility of the tribe who holds her captive. Though this frightens her, bringing up such a thing to her readers reveals a truth that many during her time would rather not acknowledge: the Native Americans are not savages. In their fear and starvation, they are still grateful to Mary for her help in clothing their children, for she is paid for her services and treated far better than a slave would be at this time. The bigger picture in this case is not one of purely genocide and sexism displayed in King Philip’s War and English Puritan society. Respect, trade, and sympathy are possible between two different peoples as shown by the Native American who gives Mary a bible, the starving squaws who feed her, and the men such as Mary’s husband who work for peaceful resolutions to land disputes rather than bloodshed. In comparison to the ideal of the “City on a Hill” and Dryden’s retelling of the conquest of Mexico, Mary Rowlandson’s narrative shows the real disparity that exists still today between every difference in opinion. Rowlandson’s narrative is one of many pieces of history that make the past not as clear cut as some would have us believe.