Native Americans tried to imitate European customs of masculine address for those of greater authority by licking the hands of men with authority. However, despite these men's efforts, this instead led to the English men feeling humored and in the mood to laugh. This cultural mix up is an example of how both cultures had different expectations for how men addressed others. (Henry Prior)

Romero opens the book with the concept of Native counterpoint, the idea that masculinity in Native society is a separate but equally pervasive set of ideals mirroring Puritan/European ideals of masculinity. These ideas of masculinity have some similar points (harmonious), but also can have some serious divergences. The counterpoint has a constant effect on the exchange of culture between Native peoples and European colonists, as the similarities serve as points where they get along, and the differences serve as points that build tension between the groups. (Tanner Gillikin)

Gender, leisure, and religion are displayed and practiced differently between the English and Native people. The English follow a more Puritan way of life where leisure is frowned upon and is seen as sinful. This group believes that manhood is portrayed by a lack of and avoidance towards leisure. Regarding religion, this group uses religion as a judgement of their manhood and status. Lastly, this group views men as the head of the household, allowing women limited access to education and roles. On the contrary, natives encouraged leisure in forms of competitions like football games and running races. This leisurely competition reflects their manhood and status among each other. In addition, this group uses religion as a spiritual guide that reinforces manhood. Regarding gender roles, natives believe in both men and women taking on the head of the household role, allowing for the equal distribution of work for both sexes. (Reiley Gibson)

Native masculinity was something these men had to earn rather than inherit; this was achieved through physical skills, spiritual progress, and community recognition. They would prove and gain their manhood by completing spiritual quests, competing in games or warfare, showing spiritual discipline, and showing their devotion to their community. Masculinity depended on the action and continued proof of manhood and dedication, rather than being given automatic respect based on title or status. (Callie McAleese)

A major theme throughout this piece is how differing conceptions of masculinity between Native Americans and the English led to misunderstandings. A primary example of this is how hunting and games were perceived in both cultures. Hunting was the man's role to provide for the community in Native culture, whereas it was a leisure activity for the English. Thus, when the Puritans saw the Native men hunting frequently, they considered them to be lazy. (Ezra Carper)

Something this piece addresses that we discussed in class as well was how you can't impose your culture's ideas of gender (or any other social construct, really) on other cultures. The Puritans compared the Native American experience to their own understandings of religion, civilization, and gender, and came up with a misunderstood concept of the way Native people were. It's important to be aware of this possible pitfall when studying and analyzing history. (Ezra Carper)

Puritan customs determined how good of a man someone was by seeing how they conducted themselves in accordance with their religion. Similarly, Native Americans in the area put importance on religion to determine manliness by partaking in rituals and daily activities. These rituals and daily activities these men performed where all an effort to achieve the physical and spiritual traits found in the ideal version of a native man. (Henry Prior)

T. Romero examined the impact of religious discourses on the formation of ideas about masculinity and gender relationships in Native American and Puritan societies. In particular, he analyzed an interesting case of tension between religiously framed labor practices (Christian communalism) and religiously framed gender hierarchy in colonial New England over communial agricultural endeavour. The tension arose from disagreements over the perceived violation of established gender dynamics within the community, as younger males had to work with women and children, older men with younger men, and married women working for men other than their husbands. All these cases indicate a complex relationship between gender and religion, which was not static, but constantly changing. - Nikolai Kotkov

Puritan society used Christianity to help shape and justify the patriarchal hierarchy of Colonial New England society, assisting in the creation of rules that governed who had access to male privileges. Manhood then was formed in contrast to boyishness and vice, primarily. For Puritans, a man was defined by his ability to live independently of his parents and no longer be dependent on them. A good man could adequately support himself and the family he creates and raises. The wife and children of a Puritan man were a way that he could show off the power of manhood granted to him by patriarchy, giving him access to the scarce amount of acceptable sex and providing for children. (Tanner Gillikin)

In the Indigenous Northeast, the line between the “natural” and “supernatural” was ill-defined. Spiritual power was not the sole possession of an almighty God, but something found everywhere. Indigenous men used masculine performance (hunting, gaming, sport) to showcase their spiritual power, as in these societies, skill was a sign of that power. This was so much so that displays of masculinity took on religious significance. Sports in Indigenous society were deeply ritualized, tobacco (which was one of the only crops grown by men) was a vital part of diplomatic processes, and steps were taken to preserve the masculine honor of Indigenous warriors - for instance, they would avoid contact with menstruating women, or else their muskets would fail, and they would therefore cease to be a man. (Nick Thodal)

English Christians sought to have their practice of Christianity associated with their masculinity. The Church as a concept/organization was praised when it was “manly”, and being a good man meant being a good Christian as well. (Ezra Carper)

This reading shows a lot of the major differences between Native and Puritan religions and masculinity. In the Native culture, masculinity was drawn on perfect physical skill as well as supernatural ability. There was not much difference between the spiritual and physical accomplishments, however, winning or succeeding in a hunt or sport was seen as a sign of achieved manhood and marksmanship. In the Puritan culture, Christianity was tied in very close with masculinity, success, and societal structure. In New England, the Church was seen as “manly” when it was strong, and in consequence, men who followed strict religious rules were seen as performing the ideals of manly qualities. -Caroline Cochran

Both Indigenous communities and Anglo-American colonists viewed manhood not as something intrinsic, but as something that had to be accomplished. However, differing views on what skills and activities led to manhood were based on differing cultural contexts. Indigenous communities emphasized the importance of individual accomplishments, especially as related to physical and spiritual power, in the process of accomplishing manhood. Anglo-Americans tended to emphasize the cultivation of a skill or craft as well as a man's independence and ability to establish his own household and family. (Cameron Spivy)

On both sides, manhood seems to have the requirement of having to prove ones self and receive some sort of outside validation. As discussed in class, the puritans seemed to have internal struggles with how to be a good person- which is only exacerbated by the fact that a man's status (on being a man) either strengthened or depleted depending on how he is outwardly meeting communal and familial expectations. (Tea Aliu)

In both Colonial and Native society, spirituality was an important part of acquiring manhood. Native society placed value on rituals and physical capabilities. Boys were expected to be able to prove themselves in fields of hunting, running, sports, games, and swimming. Demonstration of these skills proved that a Native boy had become a man. Colonial men still used spirituality as a marker of who is a man, but in a different sense. Men were not made by a ritual, but they were maintained by piety and adherence to the word of God. One who strayed from the righteous path was deemed less manly. (Tanner Gillikin)

This piece presents not only the views of masculinity of the puritans into light but also by touching on the native ideals of manhood and the behaviors that go along with it, it serves as a window into seeing the relationships that would form between these two groups. How the differences between them create social friction in some instances like the role of games and sport in Native culture clashing with European puritan values, whilst also creating some semblance of similarity for instance through the emphasis on public speech in both cultures views of masculinity. (J.D.J)

This piece lays out many of the cultural differences between the “accomplishment” of manhood, specifically, as we discussed in class, surrounding the idea of leisure. The Puritans believed that, if somebody was able to be at leisure, they were sinning. Therefore, in order to be a good christian, they would have to be working, spending time with the family, or practicing religion. Because of this, they saw the Native Americans, who were often in sport –whether that be hunting, gaming, or playing– as lazy and sinning people. They viewed them as not having accomplished their notion of manhood. However, the native people saw the colonists as doing, what they deemed, as “women’s jobs” such as farming. They didn’t see Puritan men achieving in sport, and therefore did not accept them as having achieved masculinity either. -Caroline Cochran

As others have stated, both Native American and Anglo-American colonist cultures portrayed manhood as something that must be accomplished, but their views on how exactly this should be done differed in many ways. Native American boys and men enjoyed games like puim and hubbub that offered them a competitive outlet to demonstrate their masculine abilities. The colonists, however, saw these games as sinful, believing them to be like gambling. Things like hunting and gaming, which were incredibly important to Native American manhood, were seen as lazy by the colonists, who instead prioritized a manhood consisting of farming and achieving patriarchal authority through marriage and converting people to Christianity. (Noah Rutkowski)

In addition to the discourse of masculinity, T. Romero studied the complex interplay of power and diplomacy between Native Americans and Puritans. For example, Romero’s analysis indicated that the act of gift-giving on the occasion of the Bradford–Southworth marriage was fundamentally shaped by power dynamics between Governor Bradford, on the one hand, and Chief Massasoit, on the other hand. Governor Bradford wanted to exemplify ties to the colonists by giving Massasoit clothes (a hat and a coat), whereas Massasoit displayed his power as a chief and possibly as a great hunter (and a great man by definition) through giving game animals. This interaction symbolizes the ways of establishing power internally (evaluation from one’s own community) and externally (evaluation from other regional and global actors) in the context of colonial America. - Nikolai Kotkov

This article also discusses in relation to power; the importance of oratory skills in proving manhood. In the case of native men, they needed to be not only great speakers, but there was also value in displaying wit. It is interesting to see that native and colonial manhood was partially determined in this way because they seem to be two sides of the same coin, as well as being seen a proof of the importance of a man needing to be influential in order to prove manhood. (Hannah Covin)

Romero’s article shows masculinity not as a series of nested hierarchies, but instead as a household. It envisions the Puritan's view on the patriarchy as a two way series of mutual obligations within a household with the father at the top of the household, offering his family protection and security, while his family offers him labour and loyalty/obedience. It also lays out some of the differences in gender equality between the Puritans and the Natives, showing how the natives would work in a more gender secluded system. -Caroline Cochran