Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:09 am Post subject: Posting for Tuesday the 23rd
I really liked the first part of the reading because I thought it was very well written and clear. But the second part I thought jumped around too much and had too many ideas and groups of people packed into a paragraph and page which made it hard for me to follow. I found the movie very interesting today. In the movie I found it very interesting that the Native Americans saw trading more than just a way too get goods but it also shows friendship and commitment. In the book Page says "in particular the simple generosity that Indian cultures all demanded from trading partners" which backs up what the movie was saying. In the reading I found it very interesting when they talk about the way French people view war and murder and the way Native Americans view it. And how they sometimes came to a compromise to combine the different views or traditions. When a Native American was murdered the family would receive some type of payment from the killer and his family or even take a slave to "restore the dead" pg. 197. I wonder if this exchange of goods made them feel completely better after one of their loved ones was killed or if it just helped them feel a tiny bit better. What do you guys think? Taking a slave for someone who was murdered, I think made sense back then, because losing someone who could hunt and grow food, which is a staple for their way of life, maybe did not replace the love they had for that person but did replace the productivity of that person. What do you guys think about that? Also from what I have read in this book and in others for the most part it seems like slaves became a part of the family and could even become very important people in the tribe.
Hi.
So I think it is particularly interesting that the Natives took a slave instead of a life. I think that Gigi’s point about being able to work and take place of the labor is probably true. But I think that there may be something more to it than that. In the book Page says that “the Indians thought that the French way was most strange-killing an ally in the case of murder and sparing an enemy in the case of war.” (pg. 197) Perhaps the natives valued human life a little more than the Europeans. Maybe I am reaching here but from what I understood the Natives avoided taking a life when possible.
For me the most interesting piece was also in the first part of the book, but it had to do with the mixing of cultures. Once the slaves were brought over from Africa and the markets established it the three cultures starting mixing together. They each took from one another and each gave something. This exchange totally changed the cultures of a three groups. How to you think culture today would have been affected if the Africans had never been brought over as slaves? Do you guys think this exchange of culture was a good thing or did it cause us to lose important factors of each group?
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:30 am Post subject: Paqrty people, lets get going!
Hey hey hey hey so whats up partay!!!! People if Martha can hear me say YEAH!!!!!! Anyway
I liked these readings as a post cursor to the movie even though we didn’t see the war lead by Phillip. It would have been nice to see that and I think it would bring the movie and the reading together even more but as is I thought they were related and built off eachother very well. Partly because I am a visual learner in many ways but also probably just because the movie was made well, I felt I was able to read the stories of trade, and women, and horses, and all sorts of relationships between Europeans and the Native Americans with a much clearer image in my head. I think the movie, if it truly represented the native Americans, which I hoipe it did, was really informative and filled many gaps.
One quick difference between the way Jake page presents the native Americans and the way that the documentary did was that jake page delves into the politics and social structures of the native Americans much more. At least after this one episode. This may be because Jake page makes some of this up but hopefully that’s no the case. The part about how women are treated in the Native American culture and how they interacted with the French man was very interestingf and thought provoking.
If anybody wants to answer a question. Do you think that the native americans realized there world and society was changing, or was it too slow, and if so was there difficult choices that tribe leaders probably had to make about it?
I agree with smelly old coop in that if the movie was an accurate representation, it helped me fill in a lot of gaps. I really hate though, that we cannot get any information without having to question whether or not it is legit enough for us, it makes the whole history process vastly harder.
I really liked the part where Page said that the American Indians, French and slaves all mingled. I assume that this was a bit of a cutesy thing in that I really cannot possibly believe that the 3 were BFFs. But, I really like seeing the melding of cultures and trying to figure out what each took from the other. I found it interesting to see this shmorgasborg (porbably the right spelling of course) of course in such an early period, because interracial mingling was typical frowned upon up until recently when some people still really dont like it. In reading this again though it is really frustrating me in that the French took slaves and Page states, "Along with other traded items, this sustained the three groups of people in a kind of economic if not social parity"(199) I really do not know how it can be put so simply, and that there really could have been "social parity" amongst enslaved people and their owners. I dunno, I liked the reading but get more and more annoyed with Page
I was so excited to FINALLY read a history textbook that included West Africans!!! It's a shame this isn't included in our more mainstream textbooks.
To address something Zach said, I don't think Page was trying to be cutesy or imply that the 3 were BFFs, as you put it. By using the word "mingled", I think Page was trying to say that no matter what, the French, West Africans, and Native Americans were always in close vicinity to each other- it didn't really seem like the formal segregation there was as big/clear as it was in the north. (AT least that's what it looked like to me.)
It was really interesting to see the contrast in Native American culture and French culture when it came to death/murder. "For the French, a murder called for the identification of the murderer..." [pg 197] whereas the Native Americans' "goal was to deal with the murderer's relatives or clan." [pg 197] The French had a more individualistic focus, while the Native Americans involved the family/greater community. This ties in with the community and individual theme that's been popping up throughout class. For an individual death, compensation is the communal/familial responsibility. It seems to me like this is a major distinction between European and Native American culture. So far, it seems like European culture had a larger emphasis on the individual then Native American culture did. (I'm not saying it's good or bad, that's just a general pattern I've noticed. The Spanish also stressed the individual, while the Aztecs placed value on the individual depending on how they contributed to the community.) For anyone who wants to answer a question: Where else do you see individual/community reflected throughout the book?
Page also left me with a bunch of questions. We know how the Europeans and Native Americans reacted to each other, but how did the West Africans and Natives react to each other? Was it easier for the West Africans to fit Native Americans into their worldview than for the Europeans? Did the West Africans have any role in the warfare against the Native Americans? Did the West Africans have any diseases that they brought over? How did the white, West African, and Native American women react to each other? Who did the French prefer to reproduce with, in this New World? Although Page did a great job writing about the multiculturalism, I think he left out some pretty important details.
To address Ricka's question, I think the mixing was a wonderful thing, as you all would probably know from a couple forum posts ago. Personally, being mixed, it's hard for me to see things as getting "lost". When so cultures come together, it's more of a change than anything else, and every culture gives something in order to take something. As far as important factors go, I think every culture will keep what is most important, or at least make the new culture its own to keep that value alive.
First thing that I found interesting was that the status of the women in the Indian tribes was more reliant on their families of origin and not their husband. It seems like women had many more rights and privileges in Indian society in comparison to the European societies. I also found it interesting that while they fully condemned the promiscuity of some of the unmarried Indian women, they were open to accepting them if they converted to Christianity. It seems very hypocritical, unless they would also forgive Christian women if they re-converted, but they would probably argue that the women who were already Christian should know better. I was confused when Page said that “killing an ally in the case of murder and sparing an enemy in the case of war” If the murderer is condemned and sentenced to death, I fail to see how that makes him an ally. I also wonder how if the grief was actually gone when another family would compensate for a murder with material things, or if it was purely a social status thing so they could be forgiven by the community at large. When Page briefly mentioned the addition of slaves to the culture, the nonchalant way that he said the three cultures “met” bothered me. While it is a book about American Indians, I feel like he could have given a little more mention to the slave conditions. They clearly did not just freely intermingle with the other cultures in the trade markets as I feel he is implying. (Although I am partially looking for reasons to be irritated with Jake Page, not entirely sure why though)
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 7:44 am Post subject: mah post
The Iroquois peace treaties with the English and French, and how they were "playing one off against the other", seem to prove the strategic advantages the Natives had. The tribes in New England seemed quick to switch loyalties in terms of trading, and in that way also show a little of their remaining power/effect. I only mention these things in this way because it relates to what I had chosen for my thesis in the class exercise on Friday.
The other significant and interesting things from the reading I enjoyed were the sun dancing and sexual culture with the French. Sun dancing is the type of topic/activity that is media dynamite when talking about Native Americans (like for perpetuating stereotypes). So I was curious to see how Jake Page would cover it, especially since I consider his style to be a little alternative from the norm. He was very factual, which I appreciated. As for the sexual/marital situations with the French, punishment seemed extreme for adultery (as the French then would agree) but also the involvement and interest of some Frenchmen to seek out the surplus of Native American women, was very powerful in mixing the cultures. This was much like in the movie where the Native Americans and English began dressing similarly, etc. The results were stronger social connections and trust.
Also, I found it interesting, from the movie and the reading, to see the progression of the settlers and other Europeans and their growth into a dominate force. I find it hard to believe somewhat, but then again they obviously had help from the Native Americans who could have easily wreaked them early on.
It's funny I dont ever really think of horses as being all that usefull. but I guess that they are pretty much like slow cars so that makes sense. It seemed that they were incredibly usefull. they allowed for Indians to carry more with them allowing for more complex social interactions then before. In addition horses allowed they natives to travel farther and hunt better. In general they were pretty useful.
I was confused by the "game" were you had to touch your enemy. Was there ever any killing involved or was it just a big game of tag
this was an interesting reading, i thought the first part was pretty cool. i am reluctant to believe that the french had a totally peaceful if not symbiotic relationship with the Native American's of the south but it sounds as though cultural ties were good. i guess i like the idea of three cultures coming together to form one self sufficient economic pariah in the wilderness of America hiding from french authority. that sounds like a cool way to live and its nice to think of everybody getting along. like the piece about french people and Indians compromising with their different views on murder.
i think i also realized that part of what modern society might envy about the lifestyle of the Native Americans was their opposition to western religion which is often criticized as being socially conservative in comparison to that of the Native Americans. this is most likely an overarching generalization, it is possible that some Native American tribes practiced conservative religions but the Algonquians were noted as being quite sexually liberal which the french authority despised. it is interesting that at the time their culture didn't have the same ideas about sexual independence and marriage as the french but at the same time they weren't just naive, they actually had "herbal and other means of abortion." (196)
i wonder if people think such a society could have continued to exist if the french crown didn't have any input, or are we as humans unfit for such social structure?
Ok so as usual with ol' pagey, there is a might lot to abosrb here, but I will try to lay down what I gathered. Well first, actually let me share my thoughts on the movie from today. I thought it was very interesting how there, were sort of three waves of Native American/English relations. Starting with Massasoit and Winslow as the first gen, moving onto to the puritans and Massasoit, and finally Phillip and the Puritans. It is also of note that the first wave relations were relatively stable, and as time went on, relations failed. Anyway onto Jake's reading. As Gigi said, things start off very clear and started to sprawl, which I actually didn't think was that bad. it felt more like Page started off small and expanded. A big issue that I took right away from the reading was that of land. Land possesion became a significant cause for unrest among every inhabiting North America at the time. I took away (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) that prior to European inhabitance land was not owned it was just sort of as a part of you as breathing. Imagine if some people came to the U.S. and said we're taking this much (makes that gesture… you know the one) breathing ability. We would go insane. just saying. Also this chapter talked about how women were treated and… er… , "married women might meet with severe punishment, even disfigurement or death, if caught in adultery"…… So yeah this for me, further proves that NO PEOPLE can ever be idealized. Thats horrible. It makes my skin crawl. Annother important point that has been brought up is the fact that many groups in the americas "mingled" (I know there is a better word for this). I can see this as strengethening as well as casusing tension among the cultures in The U.S. at hte time. I agree with zach… to a lot of people this was a foriegn land tension is to be expected. However i still think these people learned a great deal from each other.
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:45 am Post subject: hola
hola
-Finally! So many of my questions from past readings have been answered! This was definitely my favorite chunk of reading so far. I thought it was funny it described the different religion europeans as flavors.
-I also thought that the part about the euro peans becoming dependent on the Native Americans was kind of ironic.
-Ok the part I was most curious about was the part on abortion, it only touched on it for a few sentences, but it brought up a lot of questions for me. Do you think the europeans knew that they could abort babbys? Do you think they'd be ok with it? How did they abort them?
-The entire time I've been reading this book I've been wondering why everyone doesn't just have babbys and raise them bilingually and use them as translators, it seemed so obvious. But finally it told me that they actually did do that. Way to go olden day humans, Smart thinking.
-The part about eye for an eye was kind of shocking to me. I know we keep undoing and undoing the stereotypes we learned as kids, but this one still surprised me.
Aight I am still a little confused about exactly how the different people viewed war and murder. I thought page 197 may have contradicted itself but there seems to be a lot of conversation going on about it so perhaps we can talk about it in class. Gigi in response to your question about who values life more I think that being the "social whatnots" that Martha called us we would tend to say neither valued it more or less just differently. However in some ways it seems that the Natives might have valued it less at least when it came to religion with the sacrificing and death games plus this new thing that we read about that was comparable to crucifixion. It seems that the Europeans saw it more fit to kill when it came to matters such as land and goods and to remain almost disturbingly cool about it. The Natives did killing for religion which i guess someone could argue Europeans would also throw into the mix while killing.
I like your question Max it got me thinking about where America would be had the Europeans (or any other culture thereafter) not messed around. I think they probably would have survived as people and any other animals typically do not drive themselves to extinction if they have resources. But where do you think they would be how has Europe and the east changed compared to back then?
Hi,
i agree with alec
basically the horses were very useful, they are like slow cars as someone said.
anyways, i agree with ricka when she said that she thought the Natives avoided taking a life when possible...
now i find myself, after agreeing with that statement, wondering if it is actually back up, or if it is a stereotype that has
been ingrained into my brain. im not really sure, maybe it is back-up-able. To reiterate a question and change it slightly...assuming all of
the cultures that mixed, still mixed in this situation, are the key elements of these cultures retained when congregating? or just watered down, unimportant elements?
So I think it’s really interesting how the natives misread the Europeans and how they would take over their land eventually. I think this is probably because I know how it all played out but I still think its really weird how they trusted them so much. I thought that the movie brought up an interesting point when it said that even though the colonists attacked a neighboring tribe, the Wampanoag still trusted them. I feel like this also showed how much confidence they had in themselves in controlling the Europeans and, possibly, how much they thought they needed the Europeans. I think that if they really didn’t need or want them that they could have just wiped them out.
I think Peter brought up an interesting idea when he was asking about what America would be like if the Europeans had not messed around. This leads me to wonder what would have happened if the natives had not trusted the Europeans and killed them before any connections were made. I think that I they had done this, it might have only delayed the future, not stopped it. I think eventually Europeans would have come over again and probably taken over, especially since their technology was beyond that of the Native Americans. However I do believe that they would have put up more of a fight. The large epidemic might have been delayed if the Europeans didn’t stay long enough to pass it on, giving the Native American’s population the chance to continue and grow. This would have given them a fighting chance when the Europeans finally came over to colonize the Americas.
My question: Do you think that if the first settlers had been killed that the Native Americans would have a larger population today?
Liked this reading, been waiting for ages for the horses to show up
The beginning of the chunk called "Sex, Murder, and Food" was really interesting. Had lots of things I hadn't thought of before, and now I've got lots of questions. Probably because Page seems to like to say a quick sentence on something really interesting and then totally move on... Anyone know what types of rules and/or punishments the Europeans had around adultery? It said the French and Jesuits made everyone's sex life their business, but didn't say how...I also was really curious about the one little sentence on abortion. It seems really really advanced that people knew how to do that, but I don't know the history of it or anything so maybe abortion was just old news already. I'd also love to know what the Europeans opinions were when they found out the Native Americans had ways for abortion.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
