Difference between revisions of "426--Week 2 Questions/Comments--Tuesday"
From McClurken Wiki
(→Chapter 1--Domestic Revolutions) |
(→Chapter 2--Domestic Revolutions) |
||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
I understand that it would be very difficult to discuss every family type in depth and that generalizations are necessary, but Mintz and Kellogg use sweeping generalizations far too much for my liking. However, their section on the African American families I think is an important one because they are often overlooked in earlier time periods. Usually when studying the colonial period the focus is on the whites in the Chesapeake and in New England so a discussion, even if a more general overview, on their style of family living I think is very important. -Kelly W | I understand that it would be very difficult to discuss every family type in depth and that generalizations are necessary, but Mintz and Kellogg use sweeping generalizations far too much for my liking. However, their section on the African American families I think is an important one because they are often overlooked in earlier time periods. Usually when studying the colonial period the focus is on the whites in the Chesapeake and in New England so a discussion, even if a more general overview, on their style of family living I think is very important. -Kelly W | ||
| − | I notice a lot of criticism for Mintz and Kellogg’s “generalized” presentation of three types of colonial families, but I would argue that we cannot stop at this criticism and must look instead for the similarities and differences amongst the three groups based upon our deeper reading of the text. Take the example of children, their role within the family, how they were raised/disciplined, inheritance, marriages and dowries, even how children were expected to act with their parents can be noted throughout the Puritan family example in Chapter 1 and then compared to the three family types established in Chapter 2 to give us a better understanding of how class, region, and ethnicity altered families of the seventeenth century. – Mary Beth | + | I notice a lot of criticism for Mintz and Kellogg’s “generalized” presentation of three types of colonial families, but I would argue that we cannot stop at this criticism and must look instead for the similarities and differences amongst the three groups based upon our deeper reading of the text. Take the example of children, their role within the family, how they were raised/disciplined, inheritance, marriages and dowries, even how children were expected to act with their parents can be noted throughout the Puritan family example in Chapter 1 and then compared to the three family types established in Chapter 2 to give us a better understanding of how class, region, and ethnicity altered families of the seventeenth century. – Mary Beth |
| + | |||
| + | I think an important point made by Mintz and Kellogg between the New England and Chesapeake colonies are their stark differences in the early 18th century, to resembling each other at the close of the century. Clearly the environmental differences contributed to shorter life expectancies in the Chesapeake and the parental control of the family to bequeath all of their son's land. However in the later part of the 18th century, it is evident that the American Revolution may have contributed to the relaxed economic control Chesapeake planters had on their children. This reflects the effects of the 'silent revolution' stated in the first chapter on Puritanical families in New England. I would like to discuss the effects of the 'silent revolution' of families further in Tuesday's class because I had never made the connection between families before and after the American Revolution. -Joseph Cirenza | ||
== Linda Kerber, "Politicizing the Household" == | == Linda Kerber, "Politicizing the Household" == | ||
