Difference between revisions of "Week 2 Questions/Comments-327 09"
From McClurken Wiki
(→Cross-reading Questions -- These are particularly important...) |
(→Cross-reading Questions -- These are particularly important...) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
1. Why did Native American women's roles offend the Europeans and do we think it still would today? Or have the perceptions the Europeans had of women shape women's traditional roles today? | 1. Why did Native American women's roles offend the Europeans and do we think it still would today? Or have the perceptions the Europeans had of women shape women's traditional roles today? | ||
| − | ---I | + | ---I believe that the Europeans were offended primarily due to the differences in marital practices. First, the Native Americans had sexual relations with "potential" spouses BEFORE they were to be married. This violated a religious practice of pre-marital abstinance that Europeans followed. Christians in particular beleive that a woman should be pure and virginal at the time of marriage. Second, it offened Europeans that the Native Americans could "divorce" or change partners so readily. As John Heckwelder notes, "Marriage among the Indians are not, as with us, contracted for life" (MP pg. 30).--[[User:Mturner|Mary Turner]] 05:24, 3 September 2009 (MDT) |
A common feature I noticed within the captive stories and whether they were able to adjust to their new lives appears to be their age and the roles in which they assumed. As with Mary Jemison and also John Tanner, they were both young without attachments, and could easily adapt into their new lives as made easier by being fully adopted into the tribe as a sister / daughter and son / brother. In the case of Mary R, she was a middle aged woman, set in her ways, having a husband back home as well as a church, friends, and a role within American society in which she was part of. These differences appear to have an effect on how the captives adjust to their new lives or not in these particular sources, and makes me wonder if this could be common to others as well or if there are other factors that were missed. – Elyse Lawrence | A common feature I noticed within the captive stories and whether they were able to adjust to their new lives appears to be their age and the roles in which they assumed. As with Mary Jemison and also John Tanner, they were both young without attachments, and could easily adapt into their new lives as made easier by being fully adopted into the tribe as a sister / daughter and son / brother. In the case of Mary R, she was a middle aged woman, set in her ways, having a husband back home as well as a church, friends, and a role within American society in which she was part of. These differences appear to have an effect on how the captives adjust to their new lives or not in these particular sources, and makes me wonder if this could be common to others as well or if there are other factors that were missed. – Elyse Lawrence | ||
