Difference between revisions of "426--Week 2 Questions/Comments--Tuesday"
From McClurken Wiki
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
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 | ||
