Readings: Taylor, chaps. 6-7
Cronon, chaps. 3-5
Points of Entry:
The Middle Ground/Native Ground/Facing East Reviews:
Comanches:
Questions for discussion:
How does looking at early America through "middle grounds," "native grounds," and "divided grounds," change our view of the past?
How do you divide borderlands?
Looking at early America through middle grounds, native grounds and divided grounds greatly changes our view of the past. For one, we get away from the Eurocentric historical perspective. We get new Native perspectives that bring cultural richness to the historical record. Those native perspectives also bring new facts to the historical record. Through these three areas we learn what it was like to be a minority and we learn how Natives viewed contact with Westerners. Without these "grounds," we must learn about early colonial history through the very boring and traditional rich white man perspective; we get more diversity in the historical record.
ReplyDelete-Zach
ReplyDeleteI think looking at early America through the different "grounds" provides a useful opportunity to understand that colonization in America was not as simple as dominant europeans swooping in and conquering passive natives, but was a process that was effected by the actions of both colonists and Native Americans. Also, looking at the past this way makes the Indian point of view more accessible. I think this approach is beneficial in challenging assumptions that are in some ways just a continuation of colonization, in that the way many people perceive colonial history effectively silences the experiences of colonized peoples in the America.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Michelle's analysis that different "grounds" allow us more opportunities to understand the past. By taking into account these different historical records and providing other viewpoints, we are able to construct a much more accurate portrait of colonial America. These alternative references also depict the relationship between peoples and the land at the time.
ReplyDelete