On a couple important reasons to better remember Gloucester’s long-term
histories.
This AmericanStudier is never ashamed to admit all the things I’m still
learning about America; heck, I wrote a
whole recent series on that topic! But this might be the first time that
one of the central premises of a week’s series has fallen into that category:
before I visited Gloucester for the first time, in late August, I had no idea
that the city was as old as it is. I probably would have guessed sometime in
the late 17th or early 18th century for Gloucester’s
origin, but in fact the city was permanently
settled as a fishing and trade village in 1623, only three years after the
Pilgrims arrived in Plymouth. Moreover, initial explorations of the area by
both French explorer Samuel de
Champlain and English adventurer John
Smith significantly predate either of those arrivals, making Gloucester and
Cape Ann one of the oldest sites of European contact in New England.
Such early, complex, and foundational American histories are, as I have
argued many times, worth better remembering for their own sakes; but there
are also other benefits to improving our collective memories of Gloucester’s
past. For one thing, recognizing that 1623 settlement date forces us to engage
with just how diverse—in purpose and mission, in demographics, in identity—the
English settlers and communities in Massachusetts have always been. Even the Mayflower arrivals were composed not
only of the stereotypical Puritans seeking religious freedom but also of many other
Englishmen and women hoping for a new and better economic and personal
situation, as the Plimoth
Plantation interpreters do a great job highlighting. And as Gloucester
demonstrates, within a few years the Massachusetts and New England world would
include entire English communities dedicated entirely to such commercial
pursuits—and thus, for example, ones with very distinct and far more
economically motivated relationships
to local Native American tribes and communities than those of the
Massachusetts Bay colony as a whole.
Partly we have tended to equate the English in New England with the Puritans
because they’re a really compelling (if
often oversimplified or falsified) story—but partly we have done so because
the colony’s own leaders and historians, from William
Bradford and John
Winthrop down to the
Mathers and many others, emphasized precisely that identity. So better
remembering Gloucester’s place in that early history would also help us to see
how much such collective narratives of community and identity are constructed,
in their own moment and in the writing of their histories—and how much they are
influenced by factors such as religious ideology and class. Certainly the
former seems to have been paramount for the Puritan leaders and historians, but
I would argue that it’s difficult to separate religion from class, Puritanism
from elitism—which is to say, that Gloucester’s working class identity was as
much a factor in its earliest histories as it has continued to be in its 20th and 21st
century story (on which more later this week). We’re not
so good at talking about class here in America, but a place like Gloucester
can certainly help us to do so.
Next Gloucester story tomorrow,
Ben
PS. What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment