RESPONSES TO OCTOBER 2 WORKSHOP

1. A brief summary of the seminar. Include any highlights for you – new information, a particularly useful exercise, a favorite moment. Be sure to identify the main historical themes and the core documents presented in the seminar.

To sum up briefly, the dominant theme (for me) was the alleged "disappearance" of Native American peoples--whether physical (Indian Removal), emotional (the distancing of white New Englanders from the Indians remaining among them and the transference of their identity to themselves (!) ,spiritual (the pseudo-religious ideology of Euro-America as the "New Israel/New Jerusalem"), and political (Manifest Destiny)

2. What questions did the seminar raise for you and how will you follow-up on those questions? Will you need to do further research – and if so, how will you approach that research and what sources are available to you?

The workshop reinforces my interest in the complex issue of "identity" and the questions about how a sense of identity remains in spite of such profound transformations as religious conversion and the adoption of (or adaptation to) many of the dominant culture's political and social structures. I will continue to research particular examples of this kind of adaptation in my research into the Brothertown Indians and other similar examples.

3. How would you use this material in the classroom? If you do not currently teach this material, pretend that you do (you may be teaching it at some point in your career!).

I am using the "model" if not the specific content of the workshop in my AP World History class every time we discuss "clash of cultures". What happens to the group that gets displaced? How does it persist (Does it persist? Why? Why not?) I will use some of the specific content when we get into the chapters about the European 'invasion' of the Americas.

I also found the whole discussion about 'specular' vs. 'ocular' ways of doing history very intriguing . The whole issue of perceptions between groups--how we see each other, and how far we are willing to go to try to see things from the 'other's' perspective--is central to the way I try to approach historiography. Alice Nash's presentation about the two different ways of looking at this was very helpful.

4. How does the material presented in the seminar deepen your understanding of the relationship between representation and reality in the history of New England natives?

It reinforces my belief that the people in control also control the "story" (or, canon, as Tom put it). This, however, is changing because of the "others'" ability to get their interpretation out through the press and, now, the Internet. Even in the 18th century this was possible because of the efforts of educated Native Americans like Samson Occom (and others). It is even more possible today. The question remains, how many people in the dominant society will choose to avail themselves of those alternate points of view?