Difference between revisions of "426--Week 2 Questions/Comments--Tuesday"

I agree with Ashley that the material from Mintz and Kellogg, especially in Chapter 2, was very generalized. The three ethnic groups that they identify do not seem very cohesive in their family structure. There are several variations in the groups based on location, environment, and economic standing, among other factors. For instance, the discussion of the Native Americans seemed to briefly gloss over the 7 designated geographical areas and then focused on a few seemingly random groups, such as the Iroquois, which were not representative of all Native American families. In fact, did anyone else feel that their example of the Iroquois did not support their argument? They contend that the Iroquois were "largely able to maintain their culture, values, and rituals," and yet to reach this point of supposed stability they had to give up their practice of matrilineal descent and men had to learn the occupation of farming, resulting in a re-working of the traditional power structure and prescribed gender roles. It seems that obtaining a "stable" nuclear family resulted in the dissolution of the Iroquoian kinship network upon which their society had been based.  --Sarah Gardner

I agree with Ashley that the material from Mintz and Kellogg, especially in Chapter 2, was very generalized. The three ethnic groups that they identify do not seem very cohesive in their family structure. There are several variations in the groups based on location, environment, and economic standing, among other factors. For instance, the discussion of the Native Americans seemed to briefly gloss over the 7 designated geographical areas and then focused on a few seemingly random groups, such as the Iroquois, which were not representative of all Native American families. In fact, did anyone else feel that their example of the Iroquois did not support their argument? They contend that the Iroquois were "largely able to maintain their culture, values, and rituals," and yet to reach this point of supposed stability they had to give up their practice of matrilineal descent and men had to learn the occupation of farming, resulting in a re-working of the traditional power structure and prescribed gender roles. It seems that obtaining a "stable" nuclear family resulted in the dissolution of the Iroquoian kinship network upon which their society had been based.  --Sarah Gardner

Mintz and Kellogg also use the "typical" New England family as a means of comparison for all other groups in the colonial period. I found this to be rather strange as they were, as Mintz and Kellogg point out, very different from the families of the Chesapeake as well as the other family groups they discuss. There were a few common themes though that transcended all of the different ethnicities, one of which was the use of names. I found it very interesting that naming children was one of the few consistent ways of maintaining traditions between generations and was used as a way to maintain family continuity. Even in the very volatile world of the slave families, as Mintz and Kellogg point out, children of African slaves were named "for a parent or other blood kin." The naming of one's children appears to be something that people could control despite their families level of stability. --Sarah Gardner

Mintz and Kellogg also use the "typical" New England family as a means of comparison for all other groups in the colonial period. I found this to be rather strange as they were, as Mintz and Kellogg point out, very different from the families of the Chesapeake as well as the other family groups they discuss. There were a few common themes though that transcended all of the different ethnicities, one of which was the use of names. I found it very interesting that naming children was one of the few consistent ways of maintaining traditions between generations and was used as a way to maintain family continuity. Even in the very volatile world of the slave families, as Mintz and Kellogg point out, children of African slaves were named "for a parent or other blood kin." The naming of one's children appears to be something that people could control despite their families level of stability. --Sarah Gardner

However, I completely agree with what Sarah said above about the Iroquois adapting a European culture and being able to successfully maintain their own culture. I almost scoffed at that passage as I read it. How could the Native Americans cast aside their traditions and lifestyle so drastically and adopt those aspects of European culture and still maintain their traditions and values? But it also made me think briefly about how I think our own culture today may be in a similar situation. Are we not casting aside our old traditions and values at what seems like a daily rate? Our world is ever changing and we along with it. It will not be long before we are completely devoid of our values and traditions. I guess we, like the Iroquois, according to Mintz and Kellogg, will just have to adapt- but hopefully not too much. Celia M

However, I completely agree with what Sarah said above about the Iroquois adapting a European culture and being able to successfully maintain their own culture. I almost scoffed at that passage as I read it. How could the Native Americans cast aside their traditions and lifestyle so drastically and adopt those aspects of European culture and still maintain their traditions and values? But it also made me think briefly about how I think our own culture today may be in a similar situation. Are we not casting aside our old traditions and values at what seems like a daily rate? Our world is ever changing and we along with it. It will not be long before we are completely devoid of our values and traditions. I guess we, like the Iroquois, according to Mintz and Kellogg, will just have to adapt- but hopefully not too much. Celia M