Difference between revisions of "Week 2 Questions/Comments-327 09"
From McClurken Wiki
Amankarios (Talk | contribs) (→Roger Williams Remarks on Narragansett women – 1643) |
Rocknrowley (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
Maybe I am just cynical because I have been in a few of Dr. McClurken's classes and have had to read many primary source documents (in fact many of these look familiar) but I find it very hard to trust a lot of these writings. Practically all of these writings are from a European perspective that was trying to make sense of what they were seeing through a distorted lens. This is not their fault of course because they did not have the advantage of Wikipedia to give them some background knowledge of what they were going to encounter. Just thinking about running into a culture that has had limited to zero contact with Europeans I can only wonder how both sides interpreted each other. The Europeans have the advantage in written history here so we get a very biased view of what is going on during this time. Even when the Europeans are attempting to be honest there is a perspective here that we are missing that I wish we had more access to. Even with my frustration (it is a good frustration mind you) reading primary source documents is a constant reminder that history does not come in neatly packaged text books we get in elementary school. It is the compilation of primary sources and the interpretation of each historian through time that makes history. /rant --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 07:24, 3 September 2009 (MDT) | Maybe I am just cynical because I have been in a few of Dr. McClurken's classes and have had to read many primary source documents (in fact many of these look familiar) but I find it very hard to trust a lot of these writings. Practically all of these writings are from a European perspective that was trying to make sense of what they were seeing through a distorted lens. This is not their fault of course because they did not have the advantage of Wikipedia to give them some background knowledge of what they were going to encounter. Just thinking about running into a culture that has had limited to zero contact with Europeans I can only wonder how both sides interpreted each other. The Europeans have the advantage in written history here so we get a very biased view of what is going on during this time. Even when the Europeans are attempting to be honest there is a perspective here that we are missing that I wish we had more access to. Even with my frustration (it is a good frustration mind you) reading primary source documents is a constant reminder that history does not come in neatly packaged text books we get in elementary school. It is the compilation of primary sources and the interpretation of each historian through time that makes history. /rant --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 07:24, 3 September 2009 (MDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Though the focus seems to be on differences in the relationships between men and women for the Europeans and the Native Americans in these documents, I was a little surprised in what I found similair. In both cultures there seems to be a large focus on marriage. I am not that familiar with the way marriages worked in Europe but the way Champlain described the suitors didn’t seem that different from my impression of the way it worked in Europe at the time. John Tanner also described how his mother was so intent on setting him up on a marriage. The emphasis on marriage and family seemed like it could have been more of a unifying force than a dividing force, though it often wasn’t. - John Rowley | ||
== Roger Williams Remarks on Narragansett women – 1643 == | == Roger Williams Remarks on Narragansett women – 1643 == | ||
