I like the historical context of how popular books were, gives readers a better understanding of the readers at the time.

Interesting word choice because I had always seen the North also hating on the South. This almost makes it seem like the South were more aggressive than the North (which they were) to go as far as "demonize."

It not "drivel" (silly nonsense) because its actually how the text was able to get readers to see the injustices of slavery.

This is such a good point! Looking at how the specific piece of literature has affected America and its readers.

Argue it then. What do you mean by "American Story?" Why is it more important that both Emerson and Whitman's work?

Garfield does well to compare the writing style of this text to Whitman and Emerson. I agree with how its easier to read than these other texts were.

What about the other side? Was there evidence that this text was used to incite the South's anger/resistance to the North? The text almost says that slavery is okay when it is humane as in Mr. Shelby's house.

There's a discrepancy between this one and the 2017 Introduction. The 2017 one mentions that her other novels did not have as big of a pull but this one makes it seem like they were also revolutionizing and having an impact on people's thinking.

Redundant- similar to the next sentence "same feelings about equality"

Possible source for this? How do we know that enslaved people were directly affected by this text?

Does this mean that her family and husband motivated her to write this piece? Or was it from her own ides? This needs more clarity

How does the text depict this split between the North and South? How are the characters iconic?

Did he just... repeat the same sentence?

Well how the heck was he gonna save them all?

So by referring to these two texts as abolitionist or slave narrative, does that mean a slave narrative promotes slavery while an abolitionist narrative promotes abolishing it?

Who are the bad guys? I feel like Melville points it out to be the slaves, unlike in the Heroic Slave, where readers can side with the slaves

This speaks into the idea of how Melville is indirect and manipulative. He surprises readers by having a plot twist.

so provocative. I definitely see where this writer is coming from in her thinking. This was a really interesting analysis of one part of the novel. It did through me off a bit that this was about the main characters parents, and not the main character. Could this author say the same "passive and male-focused role" is true to their daughter? Just to think about the bigger picture.

I really like this writer's sarcasm. Yeah this part of the book really went against any sign of woman-power and standing up to men. Definitely not a feminist.

This does sound like a movie or a dream come true. Very unrealistic

This is such a good point that this author brings up. Both Rowlandson's and Cabeza de Vaca's narratives are a good example of how a person can get away with inciting pity on themselves without the whole story available to who they are trying to get pity from, the ones judging and analyzing the text.

Context is very important and I feel like if we had it, it would have answered a lot of questions I had while reading the narrative.

Suddenly i want to question "What is an American narrative?" Is the type the author's talking about referring to the depiction of the colonial encounter that Rowlandson makes? In which the natives are viewed as inhuman?

The experience supposedly made her more humble but she doesn't seem so in her narrative as she writes about it after it happened

Why was she 20 and this boy only 4? That's a big difference. I wish we knew how young the boy was.

So she was ultimately sold for money. Were they (the natives) planning on doing this all along? What took so long for someone to purchase her freedom? Were they (her people) still trying to find her?

I wonder if they were more happy by the fact that she'd be reunited with her husband over the fact that she was leaving them. Later it says one Indian even wanted to go with her. Were they excited for or even jealous of the life she was returning too? Again, very strange behavior from the Native Americans.

hmmmm sounds familiar expect that they Native Americans didn't think of the Colonists as inhumane or devilish... wait maybe they did. Wish we could see a Native American's point of view about this whole thing.

This is hard to read. She thinks that God provided for the Native Americans so that the Colonists would have enemies? As a type of punishment? No, as she explains, the Native Americans literally eat and survive on anything. They do it, not God.

Looks to God to explain and reason everything that happens. "Its okay because God made it happen this way..."

This shows how adaptive Rowlandson had become to eating meat that was not normal in the Colonist's diet. Also yeah why is she taking food from the children? She shows little emotion or guilt here. Is that why the instantly mentions a psalm? So that is can correct her mistakes? Or at least make her feel better about how she acted. Also its important to think about how at this moment its become survival so she is really fighting for herself whether its right or wrong.

Wait not sure if i missed something awhile back but how did she get separated from her husband? I thought the Native Americans had attacked her town, so did her husband escape without injury while she was taken? Lots of details missing and lots of confusion

I'm very confused about the motives and intentions of the Native Americans. Are they capturing people for ransom? Why do the kill some people and not others? Do they do it at random?

Related to the white womanhood thesis??? I think so

It seems to me like the Native American women are more physically aggressive than the men, who are more verbally aggressive.

This is the first time she's mentioned that the Native Americans lie a lot. What have they lied about before???

This reminds me of our discussion in class about white womanhood. Could this be an example of Mary using her white womanhood to gain pity from her captors?

Again we see how the Native Americas, despite having small amounts of food, will often give some to the non-native people. We saw this in de la Cabeza's text too.

Rowlandson, like the reader, is not sure what is going on- or at least makes it seem that way. Why would her mistress all of a sudden want to turn back. Where is her master...?

Interesting to see how the females treat her as opposed to the men in the village. Are the woman, treating her roughly to show that Rowlandson is inferior to even them?

Does she begin to see that being with them isn't so bad? Why wouldn't she want to be sold back to her husband? How was their marriage I wonder? Also where even is her husband?

Mary was doing pretty well in the Native society

Just when I thought Mary and the Natives were getting on good terms. Mary hadn't mentioned the devil or hell for awhile which I feel is progress towards seeing the Natives as human, not demonic.

I wonder why she didn't want them to see her cry. Perhaps so they wouldn't see her as weak? When she finally does cry the Natives are concerned, and remark that "none will hurt you" AGAIN we see how the Natives can be good people.

This is very reminiscent of one of our readings from class where we see the writer transitioning to using the word "we"

Again, we see the Natives being nice to their prisoner. They not only let her read and give her a Bible, but also allow her to knit.

Mary and this pregnant woman read this psalm as if to discourage her from running away. It basically said to wait for God's plan and have faith in Him. Again, religion is very prominent. It helps her to reason why things are the way they are. I find it interesting that she asks a native about God and they respond that they just did what they could.

Again, we can almost see how the Natives were kind-hearted and a lot nicer than the accounts of the Christians.

For being a prisoner, Mary was pretty fortunate to at least see two of her other children.

This explains why she hasn't given up on survival. Her beliefs wont let her even after she lost her child. I wonder why we haven't learned the child's name. I wonder if it is emotionally easier for Mary to write child rather than her name.

She reasons that she is captured by God's will because she wasn't a good enough Christian. Religion plays a large role in how people interpret and interact with the Natives. The Natives are from hell and they will punish you if you did not do your duties as a Christian.

Despite both Mary and her child having injuries and spending the night outside in the snow, they still survive. Is this because the Natives do not wish her dead? What are they planning to do with her? On a side note, Mary does not seem too fond of her child so what motivates her to keep on living? Was it God?

The natives did plunder her town, however we almost see that they are kind people. They carry her child for her and when she falls, they let her ride on the horse.

I remember learning about this narrative where she had a young child with her.

In one of the readings from class, we saw how the Christians were plundering the Natives. Now it is the other way around. Is this the Natives finally responding to their mistreatment?

She definitely doesn't see the Natives as humans and associates them with hell, something that is very common at the time.

Are the "they" (which I assume are Natives) trying to turn her against her own people? This makes me think they only see "English men" as their true enemy, not necessarily the women as well.

I think one of the morals of this story is that is okay to fight and kill things if they are bad. I still wonder about the beginning of this story. The boys are definitely the heroes of this story, but by coming to life after being thrown away make them a sort of superhuman? I also wonder about the meaning of the title.

This is seeming like a story of creation.

These boys are really good a getting out of sticky situations as well as disobeying their father

I wonder if it is a cultural norm to use incense to humanize a person.

How much time has passed since the mother was murdered? How did the boys survive and I wonder if the father knew his wife was pregnant. Was he expecting a child to come eventually? Or has his mind in solitude and sadness created the vision of a boy?

Who is Red-Woman in regards to their culture? Is there more to this person than what this one story says?

Again, one must look at the context and culture for the piece of work in order to understand the complete meaning. Without paying attention to things like cultural references, the text becomes meaningless to the reader and they miss out on the chance to see a new viewpoint of life.

In early history, what we categorize as "Native American Literature" is so expansive among different peoples and cultures that there really inst one type of literature. However, recently, we see that the themes found in work by Native Americans reach across multiple tribes and groups. This, as the text suggests, could be the beginning of a new true "Native American literature."

This is unfortunately what happens when a group of people deem another non-human, and thus decides that they are in the position to write about them and define them to others. This really speaks ignorance to me.

It is important to be aware of the context of a piece of work as well as the culture in order to accurately appreciate and understand it.

I find it very interesting how the Europeans, thinking that they were the almighty people (or at least that they were more human than the Native Americans), were not as sensitive to other cultures as the Native Americans were. What does this say about their beliefs? This explains why Europeans acted the way they did to new cultures.