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)

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)

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 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)