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

I found several interesting points in Mintz& Kellogg's first chapter. I noted that they wrote the "household" (instead of "family") "not the individual was the fundamental unit of society." I suppose that's a fair assessment though as they pointed out that sons often did not move further than 16 miles away from their parents. Still is household more appropriate than family? They mentioned how the male head-of-the-house voted for all, which is interesting because it's a recent trend that politicians have targeted individual voters, not the unit of a "household" or marriage. In the last election, when I was phonebanking and canvassing for a campaign, we were given strict orders to take note of who we spoke to, and would make efforts to call back for a spouse even if we had spoken to another member of that family. In other words, campaigns now value each vote and make an effort to talk to the individual, not head of house. The first chapter also dealt with discipline and Puritan religion. It's interesting to see today how the many "Nanny 911" shows are publicized today, and how the inner-workings of the once serious issue of discipline is now public entertainment (how many people really watch that for advice?).

I found several interesting points in Mintz& Kellogg's first chapter. I noted that they wrote the "household" (instead of "family") "not the individual was the fundamental unit of society." I suppose that's a fair assessment though as they pointed out that sons often did not move further than 16 miles away from their parents. Still is household more appropriate than family? They mentioned how the male head-of-the-house voted for all, which is interesting because it's a recent trend that politicians have targeted individual voters, not the unit of a "household" or marriage. In the last election, when I was phonebanking and canvassing for a campaign, we were given strict orders to take note of who we spoke to, and would make efforts to call back for a spouse even if we had spoken to another member of that family. In other words, campaigns now value each vote and make an effort to talk to the individual, not head of house. The first chapter also dealt with discipline and Puritan religion. It's interesting to see today how the many "Nanny 911" shows are publicized today, and how the inner-workings of the once serious issue of discipline is now public entertainment (how many people really watch that for advice?).

I agree with Sarah and Celia's comments about Chapter 2. Mintz& Kellogg spend lots of time explaining the geographic differences in tribes (like out of the Virginia SOL 2nd grade handbook), then lump all tribes together in the discussion of family units. They also failed to mention the valuable source of captivity narratives, from early colonists who spent time with certain tribes. Often as captives but sometimes choosing to stay, the authors provide insight about the link between colonial families and family structures of Native Americans.--Amanda

I agree with Sarah and Celia's comments about Chapter 2. Mintz& Kellogg spend lots of time explaining the geographic differences in tribes (like out of the Virginia SOL 2nd grade handbook), then lump all tribes together in the discussion of family units. They also failed to mention the valuable source of captivity narratives, from early colonists who spent time with certain tribes. Often as captives but sometimes choosing to stay, the authors provide insight about the link between colonial families and family structures of Native Americans.--Amanda