Articles summary
Name
Course
Date
Articles summary
Summary one
In his article dubbed ‘1491,’ Mann develops an argument based on a newly discovered evidence describing the land between New England and South Carolina as a development of Native Americans. The article states that Natives owned America, meaning all else were immigrants. In his argument, the writer argues that if only the Natives owned America, the lands would have low developments, as the Natives were nomads and had little knowledge. Charles also argues that the existence of the Natives was found in the South, through the evidence of stone chiefdoms, unlike in Mexico where artificially constructed islands of the Tenochtitlan existed. The difference in technology between the two societies indicates that Natives did not live alone in America. The author also criticizes the European explorers due to their ignorance of how smallpox enormously spread in America in those days, an indication that the continent was densely populated. The way that the writer displays his arguments creates some logic. Smallpox spreading at a higher rate than expected within a few days is a good elaboration of people living in a close proximity to each other. Besides, his argument on land development is worth to put into consideration, as the Natives were pastoralists who were less involved in agriculture.
Summary two
In Unsettling British Columbia, Neylan uses British Columbia to examine the nature of modern historiography in Canada. The writer draws the interest from the increased cases of land claims in courts. The writer indicates incidents between the settlers and Natives continue to develop, which the writer relates to past colonialism. Neylan develops an argument that despite the end of the colonialism era, the impacts are still prevalent in North America. The article bases its evidence from the rising ideas from historians who feel that the much-observed cases are a repeat of history, which continues to build up in the courts. Recently, however, scholars perceive the idea differently and continue to pressurize for more detailed findings on the Aboriginal issues, other than basing these arguments on past colonialism. They also call for the development of more substantial and exclusive history. The author of the publication has based her argument on what others feel, rather than develop a personal idea. However, historical colonialism may have an impact on modern society, but one cannot directly relate it to the increased cases among the Aboriginal people. Therefore, finding solutions to the current historiography is essential than comparing it to ancient history, which will create a primary and concrete account.
Summary three
In the Canadian Historical Review at One Hundred Years, Tillotson seeks to indicate how structural changes impacted scholarly history publications. The article gives two types of structural changes that influenced history, which includes determinants of nationality and meaning and scholars’ exercise of knowledge-making. The writer proposes three methods of nationality engagement. Among them is justifying ‘nation’ as a component of analyses, rejecting methodological nationalism, as well as contributing to modern imperialism history. The article also emphasizes the effects of transportation and communication technologies, noting that technology has influenced scholarly historians, giving an example of web 2.0 and digitalization. Notably, the author perceives that this modern technology affects how writers relate with their audience and how they write and share information. However, at the end of the book, it is vivid that the article articulates for adjustment than criticizing. The writer of the article transparently articulates his perception. The report, drawing its arguments from another publication, gives a better understanding of the issue the author seeks to address. Technology is crucial in bringing better ways of interaction, enabling historians to interact well with their audiences. The manner in which the writer emphasizes the importance of historians to adjust to new methods of association with their audience is convincing. The author has an understanding of changes between ages. The article has a precise analysis of developments between generations and how writers had to adapt to the new methods. This gives the reader a clear view of the writer’s argument.
Summary four
In New France Meets Early American History, Greer seeks to examine and give answers to some crucial questions on whether colonialism affected the modern world. For instance, the writer is interested to know whether the transnational currents that existed in North America had surpassed the long-term distortions related to the national framing of investigations at the beginning of the modern period. Besides, Greer tries to criticize the association of occurrences of the 19th century to those of past centuries. The writer uses the New France to generate his arguments. The article that Greer uses talks about the colonial setup that existed in the modern-day United States and Canada. The writer bases the publication on an argument that national historiographical traditions persistently have a lot of impact in modern society. Many historians across Canada use New France to validate the implications of historical traditions. Greer, in his opinion, he sees the interest of New France in American history as a proper development but does not conform to the idea of the influence it brings. Instead, the writer feels that annexing new boundaries is a matter of intellect. The writer’s understanding of the article he uses helps him develop an argument that other writers can seek to emulate. The writer’s arguments, however, do not offer a real conviction to make people understand the perception and ideology of the article clearly.
References
Greer, Allan. “National, Transnational, and hypernational historiographies: New France meets early American history.” Canadian Historical Review 91, no. 4 (2010): 695-724.
Mann, Charles C. 1491: New revelations of the Americas before Columbus. Alfred a Knopf Incorporated, 2005.
McKillop, A. B. “Who killed Canadian history? A view from the trenches.” Canadian Historical Review 80, no. 2 (1999): 269-300.
Neylan, Susan. “Unsettling British Columbia: Canadian Aboriginal Historiography, 1992–2012.” History Compass 11, no. 10 (2013): 845-858.