Difference between revisions of "328--Week 3 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I was extremely impressed by the scale of the Cherokee Seminary school. For it's time, it seemed like an impressive operation for a people so tremendously discriminated against in America, excepting the multiple burnings down of the building! I was, however, struck by the authors constant use of the word "progressive", which to me is usually a positive word, meaning moving toward improved living/way of life and education for the public. The author used it so negatively though, as a way to describe the discriminating, racially-mixed Cherokee girls and their families usually. Looking at her writings from a historians perspective I see how the word might have been used by the people themselves as a justifier of their own belief of superiority, but the author should not have used it herself because it makes it seem as though she is drawing the line herself between the status of tradition verse progression and pure-blood verse mixed-blood.~Jackie Reed | I was extremely impressed by the scale of the Cherokee Seminary school. For it's time, it seemed like an impressive operation for a people so tremendously discriminated against in America, excepting the multiple burnings down of the building! I was, however, struck by the authors constant use of the word "progressive", which to me is usually a positive word, meaning moving toward improved living/way of life and education for the public. The author used it so negatively though, as a way to describe the discriminating, racially-mixed Cherokee girls and their families usually. Looking at her writings from a historians perspective I see how the word might have been used by the people themselves as a justifier of their own belief of superiority, but the author should not have used it herself because it makes it seem as though she is drawing the line herself between the status of tradition verse progression and pure-blood verse mixed-blood.~Jackie Reed | ||
| + | |||
| + | The readings this week largely had to do with how historians have struggled to characterize women by race and gender. Women of other races were frequently overlooked. As Castaneda points out in chapter four, when women were studied, it was either because of their significance in relation to someone important, such as a governor. The experiences of any other women would be generalized to stereotype women of that particular race overall. This is interesting to keep in mind when reading “The Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barceló in Nineteenth-Century Santa Fe” by Gonzalez, in which he discusses how the life of one woman (Dona Gertrudis Barceló) impacted the image that people held of Spanish-Mexican women. Why is it that the lives and experiences of minority women could see easily and readily be generalized? --Jessica Kilday | ||
| + | |||
| + | I thought it was very interesting to read “Too Dark to Be Angels” by Mihesuah. The article described the all female seminary for Cherokee girls. When examining the experiences of Cherokee women in an all female setting, it easier to see the impact that race and economics played in their lives. You no longer have the issue of breaking down the study by gender and race, nor do you have the question of which plays a more significant role. In looking at the experiences of the Cherokee women in this school, it is easy to see that segregation occurred even when the playing field seemed to be leveled. The more white blood the females had, the more accepted they were by others. Additionally, it would be more likely that they would be able to marry and be economically and culturally successful. --Jessica Kilday | ||
