Still, this story got me thinking about the contradiction between colonial exploitation and Indians' "defense." How could the conflict between two ethnic groups always end up in violence back and forth?

This is a conflict between the religious and the non-religious, and the reaction of the Indian captor is quite different from that in the other story: while the one in Mary's story gave her a Bible, this captor cast scorn on Puritan's belief

Mentioning families, it reminds me of the constant mentioning of her child in the previous pages. Here, I would like to consider family, or parenthood, another kind of captivity in addition to religious belief and Indian attack. This is because child has deepened her trauma in some ways and added more pressure on her shoulder.

This also seems pathetic, not only because she had to pay for what the formal colonial people have done, but also because the only thing that could comfort her was the Bible, intangible religious beliefs. All she could do was to hold on to the hope given by God, but not from the reality. (Sorry if I misworded when interpreting religious-relevant parts)

Personally, having a baby is another capitivity for this mother. Even if she herself could overcome the terrible experience, she had to help her children do the same thing.

Carrying the traumatic memories for the rest of life can be a kind of captivity. Then again, how about the Indians whose home was taken and had no other resolutions but only violent defense? Isn't that also another kind of captivity?

I find this scene kind of contradictory: on the one hand, it might be a natural reaction for Indians to defend their homeland in extreme ways; on the other hand, innocent people, even the descendents of colonial people, should not be involved in historical trauma.