Difference between revisions of "329-2010--Week 2 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
Bakhtinjali (Talk | contribs) (→Things the movie got wrong) |
(→John Smith (1608) reading) |
||
| Line 117: | Line 117: | ||
While they were very interesting, I think that Smith's journals should be taken with more than just a grain of salt; since they were rewritten and republished several times, which fairly significant changes, they become a less reliable source. I also think that it is important to consider that Smith was writing to his superiors, so he was most likely trying to make himself look better, while simplifying what he knew of the Native American culture, such as describing their fascination with his glass beads and trinkets. However, Smith's journals do provide us with some insight into the power dynamics, at least from the English point of view, between Natives and colonists. -Meagan P. | While they were very interesting, I think that Smith's journals should be taken with more than just a grain of salt; since they were rewritten and republished several times, which fairly significant changes, they become a less reliable source. I also think that it is important to consider that Smith was writing to his superiors, so he was most likely trying to make himself look better, while simplifying what he knew of the Native American culture, such as describing their fascination with his glass beads and trinkets. However, Smith's journals do provide us with some insight into the power dynamics, at least from the English point of view, between Natives and colonists. -Meagan P. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | I enjoyed reading John Smith's account of his interaction with the Native Americans and Powhatan's tribe. The way in which he described the land, the Indians, and the relationship between the two peoples was very detailed and interesting. I have to admit that I still can't help but visualize the animated versions of John Smith and the Native Americans when reading the letter. I guess it's fine as long as they are acting out the true events that took place. I also wondered after I read Smith's account about his third version he published in the 1620s. I felt this version which was written for his superiors back in England was very detailed, maybe even a little over the top, and placed him as the main "star" of the show. I wonder how overly exaggerated he made his third version, the one in which most people believe as the truth? -Amy V. | ||
