Pub Date : 2023-10-01DOI: 10.1353/wmq.2023.a910408
Elizabeth N. Ellis
Considering the Present in Writing about the Indigenous Past Elizabeth N. Ellis (bio) IN the spring of 2018 the William and Mary Quarterly published a Forum titled "Materials and Methods in Native American and Indigenous Studies." One year later, the journal published another Forum addressing the rise of the term settler colonialism in early American history.1 These essays marked a watershed moment in the field and are indicative of some of the theoretical and methodological shifts required for exploring Vast Early America. Taken together, these publications signal a growing acceptance of Indigenous studies approaches in early American studies scholarship. The Great Power of Small Nations builds on this turn, and I am deeply grateful to the WMQ and my colleagues for the opportunity to discuss my book within the larger Native American and Indigenous Studies (NAIS) and early American historiographies, particularly because NAIS methods are far from broadly accepted by historians. In part, this is because NAIS demands that scholars engage with the communities that we study and consider the consequences of our work for modern tribal nations. So, as Emilie Connolly highlights in her opening comments, the field as a whole continues to wrestle with questions about whether and how to integrate NAIS approaches and theory into historical scholarship.2 When I finished writing The Great Power of Small Nations, I could not have foreseen that the book's publication would coincide with the [End Page 761] revival of long-standing, contentious debates over the perils of presentism in historical scholarship. In August 2022, the then-president of the American Historical Association, James H. Sweet, published a piece in Perspectives on History lamenting the prevalence of presentism and the infusion of "identity politics" into historical work. "This new history often ignores the values and mores of people in their own times, as well as change over time, neutralizing the expertise that separates historians from those in other disciplines," he wrote. Many scholars have echoed that perspective to express their concerns about the rise of scholarship written by historians who foreground their own experiences or engage explicitly with the present. Other historians have pushed back forcefully against these criticisms of intersectional work.3 As Jessica Marie Johnson powerfully notes, we live in a moment of striking "ideological warfare" during which some seek to erase many of the histories of Black and Indigenous peoples, while others write about the Black or Indigenous past without acknowledging the ways that those communities continue to wrestle with the legacies of colonization.4 A year later, the issue remains a live topic in the field. Is it wrong to engage the present in early American historical studies? Such a query presumes that it is possible for historians to generate research questions and interpretations outside of the present. As Alejandra Dubcovsky highlights,
在2018年春天,《威廉与玛丽季刊》(William and Mary Quarterly)发表了一个题为“美洲原住民和土著研究中的材料和方法”的论坛。一年后,该杂志发表了另一篇论坛文章,讨论早期美国历史上定居者殖民主义一词的兴起这些论文标志着该领域的一个分水岭时刻,并表明了探索广阔的早期美洲所需的一些理论和方法的转变。综上所述,这些出版物标志着早期美国研究学术对土著研究方法的接受程度越来越高。《小国的大国》建立在这一转变的基础上,我非常感谢WMQ和我的同事们有机会在更大的美国原住民和土著研究(NAIS)和早期美国史学中讨论我的书,特别是因为NAIS的方法远未被历史学家广泛接受。在某种程度上,这是因为NAIS要求学者与我们研究的社区接触,并考虑我们的工作对现代部落国家的影响。因此,正如艾米丽·康诺利在她的开场白中所强调的那样,这个领域作为一个整体继续与是否以及如何将NAIS的方法和理论融入历史学术的问题作斗争当我完成《小国的大国》这本书时,我无法预见到这本书的出版将与历史学术中存在主义危险的长期争论的复兴相吻合。2022年8月,时任美国历史协会(American Historical Association)主席的詹姆斯·h·斯威特(James H. Sweet)在《历史展望》(Perspectives on History)上发表了一篇文章,哀叹现在主义的盛行和“身份政治”在历史工作中的渗透。他写道:“这种新的历史往往忽略了当时人们的价值观和习俗,以及随着时间的推移而发生的变化,抵消了历史学家与其他学科区分开来的专业知识。”许多学者都赞同这一观点,表达了他们对由历史学家撰写的学术兴起的担忧,这些历史学家将自己的经历放在前台,或明确地关注当下。其他历史学家对这些对交叉研究的批评进行了有力的反驳正如杰西卡·玛丽·约翰逊强有力地指出的那样,我们生活在一个引人注目的“意识形态战争”的时代,在这个时代,一些人试图抹去黑人和土著人民的许多历史,而另一些人则在写黑人或土著人民的过去,却不承认这些社区继续与殖民遗产作斗争的方式一年后,这个问题仍然是该领域的热门话题。把现在纳入早期美国历史研究中是错误的吗?这样的质疑假定历史学家有可能在现在之外提出研究问题和解释。正如亚历杭德拉·杜布科夫斯基所强调的,现代的异族父权制的公民权和治理观念扭曲了我们将土著妇女视为现代早期重要的政治参与者的能力这个问题还设想,学者们应该写出完全公正甚至客观的历史。人们只需要看看美国印第安人研究的历史,就能看到这种历史研究目标的有害影响。在二十世纪中叶,关于美洲印第安人不可避免的衰落的流行假设导致历史学家和人类学家提出了一些问题,主要是关于土著民族是如何屈服于欧洲文明的,或者为什么我们失去了我们的文化。怀着寻找衰落的期望,研究人员进入社区和档案馆,发现了文化侵蚀和政治破坏的证据,这促使他们开展了一项又一项关于美洲原住民灭亡的研究。当茱莉亚·莱万多斯基提到“盛衰比喻的流行”时,她提醒我们,这一直是理解土著民族的主要视角——作为最终因与殖民接触而破裂的实体。定居者的逻辑和语言塑造了学术和实地报告,这些研究为对土著社区造成实质性伤害的政策提供了信息。自那个时代以来,很多事情都发生了变化,开创性的民族历史和社区参与的学术已经改变了这个领域。但是,印第安人历史领域从来没有摆脱过现代意识形态或研究要求,也不是独立的……
{"title":"Considering the Present in Writing about the Indigenous Past","authors":"Elizabeth N. Ellis","doi":"10.1353/wmq.2023.a910408","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/wmq.2023.a910408","url":null,"abstract":"Considering the Present in Writing about the Indigenous Past Elizabeth N. Ellis (bio) IN the spring of 2018 the William and Mary Quarterly published a Forum titled \"Materials and Methods in Native American and Indigenous Studies.\" One year later, the journal published another Forum addressing the rise of the term settler colonialism in early American history.1 These essays marked a watershed moment in the field and are indicative of some of the theoretical and methodological shifts required for exploring Vast Early America. Taken together, these publications signal a growing acceptance of Indigenous studies approaches in early American studies scholarship. The Great Power of Small Nations builds on this turn, and I am deeply grateful to the WMQ and my colleagues for the opportunity to discuss my book within the larger Native American and Indigenous Studies (NAIS) and early American historiographies, particularly because NAIS methods are far from broadly accepted by historians. In part, this is because NAIS demands that scholars engage with the communities that we study and consider the consequences of our work for modern tribal nations. So, as Emilie Connolly highlights in her opening comments, the field as a whole continues to wrestle with questions about whether and how to integrate NAIS approaches and theory into historical scholarship.2 When I finished writing The Great Power of Small Nations, I could not have foreseen that the book's publication would coincide with the [End Page 761] revival of long-standing, contentious debates over the perils of presentism in historical scholarship. In August 2022, the then-president of the American Historical Association, James H. Sweet, published a piece in Perspectives on History lamenting the prevalence of presentism and the infusion of \"identity politics\" into historical work. \"This new history often ignores the values and mores of people in their own times, as well as change over time, neutralizing the expertise that separates historians from those in other disciplines,\" he wrote. Many scholars have echoed that perspective to express their concerns about the rise of scholarship written by historians who foreground their own experiences or engage explicitly with the present. Other historians have pushed back forcefully against these criticisms of intersectional work.3 As Jessica Marie Johnson powerfully notes, we live in a moment of striking \"ideological warfare\" during which some seek to erase many of the histories of Black and Indigenous peoples, while others write about the Black or Indigenous past without acknowledging the ways that those communities continue to wrestle with the legacies of colonization.4 A year later, the issue remains a live topic in the field. Is it wrong to engage the present in early American historical studies? Such a query presumes that it is possible for historians to generate research questions and interpretations outside of the present. As Alejandra Dubcovsky highlights,","PeriodicalId":51566,"journal":{"name":"WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY","volume":"88 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136128468","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-01DOI: 10.1353/wmq.2023.a910398
Marisa J. Fuentes
Historical Care and the (Re)Writing of Sexual Violence in the Colonial Americas Marisa J. Fuentes (bio) HISTORIAN Sharon Block revisits, revises, and rethinks the lasting impacts of sexual violence experienced by a young white woman named Rachel Davis in late eighteenth-century Pennsylvania. Returning to her first published book with meticulous research and the benefits of new digital technologies, Block reconsiders the nature and legality of sexual violence in colonial America and the ethical enterprise of writing on vulnerable historical subjects. Equally important, Block centers "historical justice" in this rewriting of Rachel's life and what that might mean to people in our present. New archival evidence that she culls through traditional, digital, and genealogical research enables Block to offer a deeper and more contextualized long view of Rachel's life beyond the singular court case that sent her attacker to prison. Block places Rachel in the context of her community and settler colonial violence against Indigenous people and follows her archival traces through family relationships, marriage, and contemporary descendants. This new work enables Block to rewrite Rachel's narrative of sexual violence as one incident in a long life and raises important questions about historical production. In the essay, Block recognizes that the recovery of Rachel's archive and detailed life circumstances exemplified Rachel's subject position in this colonial past. Her mother's death and her father's destitution left her contract-laboring for relatives. Her age and employment made her vulnerable to the power of white men in this context. Still, Block offers a critical clarification that makes plain the different archival, narrative, and methodological possibilities for specific early modern women: "The archival traces left about Euro-colonial women such as [End Page 693] Rachel Davis are in no way comparable to the archival absences common to enslaved, Black, and Indigenous women."1 Here I want to think about how ethical and methodological stakes change depending on the historical subjects we research and engage. Block gestures toward this when briefly discussing the case of Phillis, an enslaved woman who "was pregnant with her enslaver's child." Block explains how "focusing on the production of history requires fuller and more just narratives that actively theorize the unrecoverable lived experiences of enslaved and Black women while attending to the violence too often inherent in the slim archival recordings of their existence."2 I am concerned about ethical historical writing and the troubling narrative practices that do not seriously contend with the methodological cautions Black feminist historians have made plain in their work on slavery. My essay cites work on both sides of the ethical divide to signal the epistemic consequences of writing without particular care for the historically subjugated. In this essay I will lean significantly on Saidiya Hartma
{"title":"Historical Care and the (Re)Writing of Sexual Violence in the Colonial Americas","authors":"Marisa J. Fuentes","doi":"10.1353/wmq.2023.a910398","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/wmq.2023.a910398","url":null,"abstract":"Historical Care and the (Re)Writing of Sexual Violence in the Colonial Americas Marisa J. Fuentes (bio) HISTORIAN Sharon Block revisits, revises, and rethinks the lasting impacts of sexual violence experienced by a young white woman named Rachel Davis in late eighteenth-century Pennsylvania. Returning to her first published book with meticulous research and the benefits of new digital technologies, Block reconsiders the nature and legality of sexual violence in colonial America and the ethical enterprise of writing on vulnerable historical subjects. Equally important, Block centers \"historical justice\" in this rewriting of Rachel's life and what that might mean to people in our present. New archival evidence that she culls through traditional, digital, and genealogical research enables Block to offer a deeper and more contextualized long view of Rachel's life beyond the singular court case that sent her attacker to prison. Block places Rachel in the context of her community and settler colonial violence against Indigenous people and follows her archival traces through family relationships, marriage, and contemporary descendants. This new work enables Block to rewrite Rachel's narrative of sexual violence as one incident in a long life and raises important questions about historical production. In the essay, Block recognizes that the recovery of Rachel's archive and detailed life circumstances exemplified Rachel's subject position in this colonial past. Her mother's death and her father's destitution left her contract-laboring for relatives. Her age and employment made her vulnerable to the power of white men in this context. Still, Block offers a critical clarification that makes plain the different archival, narrative, and methodological possibilities for specific early modern women: \"The archival traces left about Euro-colonial women such as [End Page 693] Rachel Davis are in no way comparable to the archival absences common to enslaved, Black, and Indigenous women.\"1 Here I want to think about how ethical and methodological stakes change depending on the historical subjects we research and engage. Block gestures toward this when briefly discussing the case of Phillis, an enslaved woman who \"was pregnant with her enslaver's child.\" Block explains how \"focusing on the production of history requires fuller and more just narratives that actively theorize the unrecoverable lived experiences of enslaved and Black women while attending to the violence too often inherent in the slim archival recordings of their existence.\"2 I am concerned about ethical historical writing and the troubling narrative practices that do not seriously contend with the methodological cautions Black feminist historians have made plain in their work on slavery. My essay cites work on both sides of the ethical divide to signal the epistemic consequences of writing without particular care for the historically subjugated. In this essay I will lean significantly on Saidiya Hartma","PeriodicalId":51566,"journal":{"name":"WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136127192","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-01DOI: 10.1353/wmq.2023.a910397
Christine DeLucia
Seeking Circles of Dialogue and Accountability Christine DeLucia (bio) HISTORIANS' work is an "ethical enterprise" involving foundational considerations of justice and accountability to past and present communities. Sharon Block frames these stakes for "doing history" in this incisive reflection on the methods and goals of early Americanists.1 In revisiting Rachel Davis and her social worlds, Block models one approach to an ethical practice of engagement with the past and its ongoing meanings. Her piece exemplifies relational approaches to scholarship that extend beyond academic boundaries and calls for substantive commitments to these processes among practitioners of early American history. On one level, the resulting narrative recontextualizes Rachel's devastating experiences with sexual violence in light of newly accessible information and revised interpretive frames. On another, it excavates structures of power and caretaking inherent in knowledge production and the possibilities—and challenges—of seeking to interact more intentionally with multiple communities invested in these stories. This is a compelling inaugural entry in the "Methods and Practices" section of the William and Mary Quarterly. It takes on nothing less than the necessity of "remaking [the historical profession's] methods and values."2 In articulating these issues through the microhistories of Rachel's networks, centuries ago and today, Block emphasizes that she walks richly cultivated fields. Always attentive to genealogies, she cites and enters into fruitful dialogue with hard-fought-for interventions by African American, Indigenous, feminist, LGBTQ2S, and other scholars and practitioners who [End Page 685] contend with the American historical profession's epistemologies and exercises of authority. Among the questions she surfaces (to paraphrase): What does it mean to approach historical study through restorative processes? What forms of greater justice are possible—but still unrealized—through recovery-oriented research and storytelling? Can people occupying academic roles develop accountable, reciprocal relations with communities that are grounded in respect and mutuality rather than hierarchy and extraction? One of the piece's essential contributions is a discussion of how to situate the interpersonal sexual violence that Rachel Davis experienced at the hands of a fellow colonizer. This intimate gendered harm affected Rachel in ways both knowable and not. It occurred in contexts of larger societal violences enacted by settler colonizers and enslavers upon Indigenous and African American people. As Block explains, "My renewed and ongoing focus on Rachel has helped me think about the task of tracking Black and Indigenous victims of sexual violence who may have left far fewer, if any, archival traces beyond rarely recorded moments of sexual victimization."3 Whose experiences with harrowing or even fatal sexual violence attain attention, care, visibility, and calls for redr
Christine DeLucia(生物)历史学家的工作是一项“伦理事业”,涉及对过去和现在社区的正义和责任的基本考虑。在对早期美国学家的方法和目标的深刻反思中,莎伦·布洛克为“研究历史”构建了这些利害关系。1在重新审视蕾切尔·戴维斯和她的社会世界时,布洛克为参与过去及其持续意义的伦理实践提供了一种方法。她的作品体现了超越学术界限的关系研究方法,并呼吁早期美国历史的实践者对这些过程作出实质性的承诺。在一个层面上,根据新获得的信息和修订的解释框架,由此产生的叙述将雷切尔遭受性暴力的毁灭性经历重新置于背景中。另一方面,它挖掘了知识生产中固有的权力和照顾结构,以及寻求更有意地与投资于这些故事的多个社区互动的可能性和挑战。这是《威廉与玛丽季刊》“方法与实践”部分中引人注目的首篇文章。它的必要性不亚于“重塑(历史专业的)方法和价值观”。布洛克通过几个世纪前和今天雷切尔网络的微观历史来阐述这些问题,强调她行走在富饶的土地上。她总是关注谱系,她引用了非裔美国人、土著、女权主义者、LGBTQ2S和其他学者和实践者的努力,并与他们进行了富有成效的对话,这些学者和实践者与美国历史专业的认识论和权威的运用相抗争。在她提出的问题中(转述一下):通过恢复性过程进行历史研究意味着什么?通过以恢复为导向的研究和讲故事,哪些形式的更大的正义是可能的——但仍未实现?担任学术角色的人能否在尊重和互惠的基础上,而不是在等级和压榨的基础上,与社区发展负责任的互惠关系?这篇文章的重要贡献之一是讨论了如何将蕾切尔·戴维斯所经历的人际性暴力置于殖民者同伴的手中。这种亲密的性别伤害以一种不知不觉的方式影响着瑞秋。它发生在殖民者和奴隶主对土著和非裔美国人施加更大的社会暴力的背景下。正如布洛克所解释的那样,“我对瑞秋的重新关注和持续关注,帮助我思考了追踪性暴力的黑人和土著受害者的任务,这些人除了很少记录的性受害者时刻之外,可能留下的档案痕迹要少得多,如果有的话。”谁的悲惨甚至致命的性暴力经历得到了学术界以外的学者和行动者的关注、关心、关注和纠正呼吁?批判性地理解欧洲殖民主义的生活,包括那些遭受创伤性侵犯的妇女的生活,意味着承认黑人和土著居民的生活受到了使欧洲殖民主义得以发展和掌权的制度和结构的严重影响。当她利用关键的档案研究方法来讨论数字资源(如网站Find a grave4)时,Block邀请对这些问题进行扩展的对话。这个墓地数据库——一个众包的,免费访问的在线档案——是某些类型的家谱和历史研究的有价值的工具。布洛克从一位后裔和系谱学家那里得知了雷切尔·[戴维斯]·库恩(Rachel [Davis] Coon)在费城东北部第二十三区的一个墓地里的新记录,从而更准确地定位和解释了雷切尔生命的最后转折。“被她大家庭的坟墓包围着,”瑞秋与亲戚保持着联系,他们可能决定了在哪里以及如何纪念她长老会附属的墓地随着时间的推移似乎保持相对完整,而不是被高速公路的建设扰乱或以其他方式消失。相比之下,许多非裔美国人和土著社区建立和尊重的墓地在美国的“发展”过程中遭到(并将继续)破坏、掠夺或彻底摧毁,有关人物和地点的清晰记录要么一开始就没有保存下来,要么也被破坏了。读到这个故事的新转折,我开始思考墓地与遗址的接近……
{"title":"Seeking Circles of Dialogue and Accountability","authors":"Christine DeLucia","doi":"10.1353/wmq.2023.a910397","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/wmq.2023.a910397","url":null,"abstract":"Seeking Circles of Dialogue and Accountability Christine DeLucia (bio) HISTORIANS' work is an \"ethical enterprise\" involving foundational considerations of justice and accountability to past and present communities. Sharon Block frames these stakes for \"doing history\" in this incisive reflection on the methods and goals of early Americanists.1 In revisiting Rachel Davis and her social worlds, Block models one approach to an ethical practice of engagement with the past and its ongoing meanings. Her piece exemplifies relational approaches to scholarship that extend beyond academic boundaries and calls for substantive commitments to these processes among practitioners of early American history. On one level, the resulting narrative recontextualizes Rachel's devastating experiences with sexual violence in light of newly accessible information and revised interpretive frames. On another, it excavates structures of power and caretaking inherent in knowledge production and the possibilities—and challenges—of seeking to interact more intentionally with multiple communities invested in these stories. This is a compelling inaugural entry in the \"Methods and Practices\" section of the William and Mary Quarterly. It takes on nothing less than the necessity of \"remaking [the historical profession's] methods and values.\"2 In articulating these issues through the microhistories of Rachel's networks, centuries ago and today, Block emphasizes that she walks richly cultivated fields. Always attentive to genealogies, she cites and enters into fruitful dialogue with hard-fought-for interventions by African American, Indigenous, feminist, LGBTQ2S, and other scholars and practitioners who [End Page 685] contend with the American historical profession's epistemologies and exercises of authority. Among the questions she surfaces (to paraphrase): What does it mean to approach historical study through restorative processes? What forms of greater justice are possible—but still unrealized—through recovery-oriented research and storytelling? Can people occupying academic roles develop accountable, reciprocal relations with communities that are grounded in respect and mutuality rather than hierarchy and extraction? One of the piece's essential contributions is a discussion of how to situate the interpersonal sexual violence that Rachel Davis experienced at the hands of a fellow colonizer. This intimate gendered harm affected Rachel in ways both knowable and not. It occurred in contexts of larger societal violences enacted by settler colonizers and enslavers upon Indigenous and African American people. As Block explains, \"My renewed and ongoing focus on Rachel has helped me think about the task of tracking Black and Indigenous victims of sexual violence who may have left far fewer, if any, archival traces beyond rarely recorded moments of sexual victimization.\"3 Whose experiences with harrowing or even fatal sexual violence attain attention, care, visibility, and calls for redr","PeriodicalId":51566,"journal":{"name":"WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136128459","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-01DOI: 10.1353/wmq.2023.a910406
Julia Lewandoski
Beyond Rise and Fall:Size, Power, and Survival in the Gulf South Julia Lewandoski (bio) DURING the long eighteenth century, the Petites Nations of the Lower Mississippi Valley practiced a political system that allowed them strength and flexibility—or, rather, strength through flexibility. Whether in times of crisis or alliance building, Petites Nations peoples often formed multinational settlements, and their shared customs of offering refuge to migrants enabled them to rebuild after epidemics or deadly violence. But just as fundamental to this system was the ability of nations or smaller groups within them to break away. These processes of disintegration and reconstitution made survival possible under successive colonial regimes and in the midst of an economy shaped by enslavement. And they enabled the Petites Nations to nimbly direct the wider political geography of the Gulf South for more than a century. Elizabeth N. Ellis's portrait of the eighteenth-century Petites Nations in The Great Power of Small Nations is carefully researched and richly rendered. She conveys the complexities of multinational diplomacy in part with a vivid description of the corn porridge, which was ground, boiled, and thickened with venison and bear fat, that Biloxi women offered in greeting to international visitors. She invokes the sounds of the French medals worn by Tunica leader Lattanash—clinking alongside his copper and shell bracelets and anklets—as he asserted his multiple alliances and displayed Tunica power. Vignettes such as these reveal the ways that Ellis skillfully and imaginatively interprets the colonial archives of Louisiana. The men, women, and nonbinary leaders and members of these small nations appear as complex humans, making difficult choices under changing circumstances. Ellis has not drawn an idealized or flattened portrait of noble Indigenous resistance based on unilateral cooperation. She describes a political system that enabled long-term opposition, renegotiation, and independence under colonialism. Ellis roots the power of the Petites Nations in a "culturally institutionalized approach to negotiating refuge" (29), facilitated through a common repertoire of ceremonies, gifts, speeches, and diplomacy. Nations with more land and resources offered refuge to migrants [End Page 751] fleeing violence or enslavement, as the Tensas welcomed the Mosopeleas in the 1670s, and as the Natchez folded in the Tioux and Grigras in the early eighteenth century. The specificity and equanimity of this portrait of Petites Nations geopolitics should provoke scholars to reimagine Indigenous power far beyond the Gulf South. Historians of Native North America often highlight the histories of large nations, confederacies that commanded European respect, and territorial empires as they expanded and contracted.1 The identification of these examples of early American Indigenous power has been a welcome corrective to prior narratives of victimhood and dependency. But tha
超越兴衰:南海湾的规模、权力和生存朱莉娅·莱万多斯基(生物)在漫长的18世纪,密西西比河下游河谷的小部落实行一种政治制度,这种制度允许他们强大和灵活——或者更确切地说,通过灵活获得力量。无论是在危机时期还是在建立联盟时期,小民族往往形成多民族定居点,他们向移民提供庇护的共同习俗使他们能够在流行病或致命暴力之后进行重建。但是,对于这个体系来说,同样重要的是国家或其中较小的群体脱离的能力。这些解体和重建的过程使在连续的殖民政权下和在由奴役形成的经济中生存成为可能。它们使小部落能够在一个多世纪的时间里灵活地领导南海湾地区更广泛的政治地理。伊丽莎白·n·埃利斯(Elizabeth N. Ellis)在《小国的大国》一书中对18世纪小国的描绘经过了仔细的研究和丰富的渲染。她通过对玉米粥的生动描述,在一定程度上表达了多国外交的复杂性。玉米粥是由鹿肉和熊脂肪磨碎、煮熟、增稠而成的,是比洛克西妇女在欢迎国际游客时提供的。她引用了图尼察领导人拉塔纳什佩戴的法国勋章的声音——他的铜和贝壳手镯和脚镯叮当作响——当他宣称他的多个联盟并展示图尼察的权力时。像这样的小插曲揭示了埃利斯巧妙而富有想象力地解释路易斯安那州殖民档案的方式。这些小国的男女、非二元领导人和成员都是复杂的人类,在不断变化的环境下做出艰难的选择。埃利斯并没有把基于单方面合作的高尚的土著抵抗描绘成理想化或扁平的形象。她描述了一个在殖民主义统治下允许长期反对、重新谈判和独立的政治制度。埃利斯将小民族的权力根植于一种“文化上制度化的方式来协商避难”(29),通过仪式、礼物、演讲和外交的共同保留来促进。拥有更多土地和资源的国家为逃离暴力或奴役的移民提供庇护,就像17世纪70年代田纳西人欢迎莫斯科人一样,18世纪初纳奇兹人在Tioux和Grigras中屈服。这幅关于小国地缘政治的描绘的特殊性和平稳性,应该会促使学者们重新想象远远超出南海湾地区的本土力量。研究北美土著的历史学家经常强调一些大国的历史,那些博得欧洲人尊敬的联盟,以及那些扩张和收缩的领土帝国这些早期美国土著力量的例子的识别是对先前受害者和依赖性叙述的一种受欢迎的纠正。但是,这种对历史的强调隐含地假设,土著人民需要同等的规模和政治组织来与定居者竞争。相比之下,埃利斯在描述小民族的力量时,并没有依赖于欧洲对国家或帝国统治的基本定义。为了做到这一点,她仔细观察了小国在南海湾地区的政治和领土是如何运作的。她方法的精确性为研究反映美国早期实际情况的本土权力的不同形式的学术研究提供了一个模型。她揭示了根植于几个世纪以来发展这些体系的国家的文化和认识论的控制形式,而不是欧洲人对权力构成的假设。历史学家寻找模式和叙事,他们往往更喜欢变化而不是连续性,正如盛衰比喻的流行所揭示的那样。埃利斯敦促我们重新考虑历史学家经常强加给土著人民的时间框架。在他们控制密西西比河下游河谷的整个世纪中,小矮人民族从未一贯寻求政治巩固。他们从多国组织时期汲取力量,即使这些协议是临时的,他们也从联盟的解体中汲取力量。几个世纪以来,他们一再拒绝发展中央集权的政治体系或联合成更大的政体——这并没有削弱他们的力量。以前的学者们有完全不同的观点,他们经常把这种邦联的缺乏解释为中央集权时代之间的暂时中断。他们把小民族描绘成大……解体的“残余”(8)。
{"title":"Beyond Rise and Fall: Size, Power, and Survival in the Gulf South","authors":"Julia Lewandoski","doi":"10.1353/wmq.2023.a910406","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/wmq.2023.a910406","url":null,"abstract":"Beyond Rise and Fall:Size, Power, and Survival in the Gulf South Julia Lewandoski (bio) DURING the long eighteenth century, the Petites Nations of the Lower Mississippi Valley practiced a political system that allowed them strength and flexibility—or, rather, strength through flexibility. Whether in times of crisis or alliance building, Petites Nations peoples often formed multinational settlements, and their shared customs of offering refuge to migrants enabled them to rebuild after epidemics or deadly violence. But just as fundamental to this system was the ability of nations or smaller groups within them to break away. These processes of disintegration and reconstitution made survival possible under successive colonial regimes and in the midst of an economy shaped by enslavement. And they enabled the Petites Nations to nimbly direct the wider political geography of the Gulf South for more than a century. Elizabeth N. Ellis's portrait of the eighteenth-century Petites Nations in The Great Power of Small Nations is carefully researched and richly rendered. She conveys the complexities of multinational diplomacy in part with a vivid description of the corn porridge, which was ground, boiled, and thickened with venison and bear fat, that Biloxi women offered in greeting to international visitors. She invokes the sounds of the French medals worn by Tunica leader Lattanash—clinking alongside his copper and shell bracelets and anklets—as he asserted his multiple alliances and displayed Tunica power. Vignettes such as these reveal the ways that Ellis skillfully and imaginatively interprets the colonial archives of Louisiana. The men, women, and nonbinary leaders and members of these small nations appear as complex humans, making difficult choices under changing circumstances. Ellis has not drawn an idealized or flattened portrait of noble Indigenous resistance based on unilateral cooperation. She describes a political system that enabled long-term opposition, renegotiation, and independence under colonialism. Ellis roots the power of the Petites Nations in a \"culturally institutionalized approach to negotiating refuge\" (29), facilitated through a common repertoire of ceremonies, gifts, speeches, and diplomacy. Nations with more land and resources offered refuge to migrants [End Page 751] fleeing violence or enslavement, as the Tensas welcomed the Mosopeleas in the 1670s, and as the Natchez folded in the Tioux and Grigras in the early eighteenth century. The specificity and equanimity of this portrait of Petites Nations geopolitics should provoke scholars to reimagine Indigenous power far beyond the Gulf South. Historians of Native North America often highlight the histories of large nations, confederacies that commanded European respect, and territorial empires as they expanded and contracted.1 The identification of these examples of early American Indigenous power has been a welcome corrective to prior narratives of victimhood and dependency. But tha","PeriodicalId":51566,"journal":{"name":"WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136128464","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-01DOI: 10.1353/wmq.2023.a910405
Jessica Marie Johnson
Many Small Nations:Black, Indigenous, Black/Indigenous Bvlbancha Jessica Marie Johnson (bio) I am thrilled and honored to be part of this conversation about Elizabeth N. Ellis's The Great Power of Small Nations: Indigenous Diplomacy in the Gulf South. I come to this conversation as a queer Black-on-both-sides (U.S. South and Puerto Rico) historian of slavery with a focus on Africans and their forced migration throughout the Atlantic world. I also come to this conversation as a scholar with a deep investment in present-day Black life in Louisiana and beyond. From Atakapas to Natchez to Bvlbancha (the Choctaw name for the site of present-day New Orleans and a word that translates to "many tongues"), the sixty-four parishes of present-day Louisiana provide a complex historical milieu that extends beyond mainland North America. It is, I hope, common knowledge at this point that Black life in Louisiana is impossible to understand outside of African history. Thanks to the tremendous and groundbreaking work of scholars such as the late Gwendolyn Midlo Hall, author of Africans in Colonial Louisiana and the founder of the Afro-Louisiana History and Genealogy database, the connections between this region and Senegambia, in particular, and West and West-Central Africa are a matter of historical fact. Scholars including Hall, Ibrahima Seck, Jennifer M. Spear, and Cécile Vidal have tracked Africans and people of African descent as they moved across the African diaspora and Caribbean archipelago. Some of the greatest writers of our time, from Édouard Glissant to Saidiya Hartman, Stephanie E. Smallwood, and Sowande' M. Mustakeem, have labored to describe the tremendous rupture and fierce creativity that enslavement generated in the lives of African women, children, and men who suffered those forced migrations.1 At the [End Page 745] mercy of trading companies, distant investors, absentee owners, and upstart entrepreneurs, Africans battled against would-be capitalists, imperialists, enslavers, and settlers seeking to transform them from people with diverse experiences, histories, and cosmologies into commodities, useful for advancing the fortunes of a select few. This is the world that made the Louisiana we know today. Rampant conquest, acquisition, terror, commodification, and forced dispersal of people of many nations for the gratification and enrichment of others drove the founding of French colonial society on the Gulf Coast. French imperial officials and Louisiana-born French and French-Canadian settlers played major roles in settler colonialism. Their quest for dominance led French settlers to withstand scarcity and a sometimes hardscrabble existence on the outer edge of the French Empire and to forge delicate alliances with Indigenous nations from the Haudenosaunee Confederacy in the north to the Tunicas and Natchez in the south. Although conquest is a term most often used by historians of Latin America and the Caribbean writing about the predations by Sp
许多小国:黑人,土著,黑人/土著Bvlbancha杰西卡·玛丽·约翰逊(传记)我很激动,也很荣幸能参加这次关于伊丽莎白·n·埃利斯的《小国的大国:南海湾地区的土著外交》的对话。我是作为一个古怪的黑人双方(美国南部和波多黎各)奴隶制历史学家来参加这次对话的,重点是非洲人和他们在大西洋世界的被迫迁移。我也是作为一名学者参加这次对话的,我对路易斯安那州及其他地区的当代黑人生活有着深入的研究。从Atakapas到Natchez再到Bvlbancha(乔克托语对现今新奥尔良所在地的称呼,翻译过来是“多种语言”),今天路易斯安那州的64个教区提供了一个复杂的历史环境,延伸到北美大陆之外。在这一点上,我希望大家都知道,路易斯安那州黑人的生活不可能脱离非洲历史来理解。由于已故的格温多林·米德洛·霍尔(Gwendolyn Midlo Hall)等学者的大量开创性工作,该地区与塞内冈比亚(特别是西非和西非)之间的联系已成为历史事实。格温多林·米德洛是《路易斯安那殖民地的非洲人》一书的作者,也是非洲-路易斯安那历史和家谱数据库的创始人。包括Hall、Ibrahima Seck、Jennifer M. Spear和csamciile Vidal在内的学者追踪了非洲人和非洲人后裔在非洲侨民和加勒比群岛之间的迁移。我们这个时代的一些最伟大的作家,从Édouard Glissant到Saidiya Hartman, Stephanie E. Smallwood和Sowande' M. Mustakeem,都努力地描述了奴隶制在遭受被迫迁移的非洲妇女、儿童和男人的生活中所产生的巨大的破裂和激烈的创造力在贸易公司、遥远的投资者、缺席的业主和暴发户的摆布下,非洲人与潜在的资本家、帝国主义者、奴隶主和定居者进行了斗争,这些人试图将非洲人从具有不同经历、历史和宇宙观的人转变为商品,有助于提高少数人的财富。正是这个世界造就了我们今天所熟知的路易斯安那州。猖獗的征服、收购、恐怖、商品化以及许多国家的人民为了满足和富裕而被迫分散,推动了法国殖民社会在墨西哥湾沿岸的建立。法国帝国官员和路易斯安那出生的法国人和法裔加拿大人在移民殖民主义中发挥了重要作用。他们对统治地位的追求使法国定居者忍受了法兰西帝国外围的物资匮乏和有时艰苦的生活,并与从北部的豪德诺苏尼邦联到南部的突尼斯和纳齐兹的土著民族建立了微妙的联盟。虽然征服是拉丁美洲和加勒比地区的历史学家在写西班牙和葡萄牙在南大西洋的掠夺时最常使用的一个词,但法裔美国人的学者很少使用这个词,它仍然是唯一一个完全概括路易斯安那州形成过程的词。在为本刊撰写的一篇文章中,杰弗里·奥斯特勒(Jeffrey Ostler)和南希·舒梅克(Nancy Shoemaker)指出,定居者殖民主义是“一个过程,而不是一个结构或一个事件”,是一种不断展开的暴力包围,对我们现在的生活方式产生了影响换句话说,“征服”,正如蒂芙尼·莱斯博·金(Tiffany Lethabo King)所写,“以及对征服的抵抗,是一个活生生的、日常的、永远存在的时刻,演员可以与之互动,也可以打断它。”它不是一个事件,甚至不是一个结构,而是一种环境或一组活跃的关系,我们可以推动它,在其中移动,每时每刻重做。征服的范例提醒研究广袤早期美洲的历史学家,非洲/黑人历史和土著历史是交织在一起的。如果不考虑法国对构成南海湾的许多土著政体的入侵,就不能理解法国对构成塞内冈比亚海岸的许多非洲政体的入侵。法国帝国官员固执地把自己安置在沼泽深处几乎不适合居住或几乎不适合居住的地方,或者沿着一条长期泛滥的河流[End Page 746]同样,除了他们从圣路易斯·杜·萨姆萨格尔带走非洲人的梦想之外,这也没有意义……
{"title":"Many Small Nations: Black, Indigenous, Black/Indigenous Bvlbancha","authors":"Jessica Marie Johnson","doi":"10.1353/wmq.2023.a910405","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/wmq.2023.a910405","url":null,"abstract":"Many Small Nations:Black, Indigenous, Black/Indigenous Bvlbancha Jessica Marie Johnson (bio) I am thrilled and honored to be part of this conversation about Elizabeth N. Ellis's The Great Power of Small Nations: Indigenous Diplomacy in the Gulf South. I come to this conversation as a queer Black-on-both-sides (U.S. South and Puerto Rico) historian of slavery with a focus on Africans and their forced migration throughout the Atlantic world. I also come to this conversation as a scholar with a deep investment in present-day Black life in Louisiana and beyond. From Atakapas to Natchez to Bvlbancha (the Choctaw name for the site of present-day New Orleans and a word that translates to \"many tongues\"), the sixty-four parishes of present-day Louisiana provide a complex historical milieu that extends beyond mainland North America. It is, I hope, common knowledge at this point that Black life in Louisiana is impossible to understand outside of African history. Thanks to the tremendous and groundbreaking work of scholars such as the late Gwendolyn Midlo Hall, author of Africans in Colonial Louisiana and the founder of the Afro-Louisiana History and Genealogy database, the connections between this region and Senegambia, in particular, and West and West-Central Africa are a matter of historical fact. Scholars including Hall, Ibrahima Seck, Jennifer M. Spear, and Cécile Vidal have tracked Africans and people of African descent as they moved across the African diaspora and Caribbean archipelago. Some of the greatest writers of our time, from Édouard Glissant to Saidiya Hartman, Stephanie E. Smallwood, and Sowande' M. Mustakeem, have labored to describe the tremendous rupture and fierce creativity that enslavement generated in the lives of African women, children, and men who suffered those forced migrations.1 At the [End Page 745] mercy of trading companies, distant investors, absentee owners, and upstart entrepreneurs, Africans battled against would-be capitalists, imperialists, enslavers, and settlers seeking to transform them from people with diverse experiences, histories, and cosmologies into commodities, useful for advancing the fortunes of a select few. This is the world that made the Louisiana we know today. Rampant conquest, acquisition, terror, commodification, and forced dispersal of people of many nations for the gratification and enrichment of others drove the founding of French colonial society on the Gulf Coast. French imperial officials and Louisiana-born French and French-Canadian settlers played major roles in settler colonialism. Their quest for dominance led French settlers to withstand scarcity and a sometimes hardscrabble existence on the outer edge of the French Empire and to forge delicate alliances with Indigenous nations from the Haudenosaunee Confederacy in the north to the Tunicas and Natchez in the south. Although conquest is a term most often used by historians of Latin America and the Caribbean writing about the predations by Sp","PeriodicalId":51566,"journal":{"name":"WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136128465","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-01DOI: 10.1353/wmq.2023.a910412
Thomas M. Wickman
Reviewed by: People of the Ecotone: Environment and Indigenous Power at the Center of Early America by Robert Michael Morrissey Thomas M. Wickman People of the Ecotone: Environment and Indigenous Power at the Center of Early America. By Robert Michael Morrissey. Weyerhaeuser Environmental Books. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2022. 294 pages. Cloth, paper, ebook. On the vast and flat stage of the eastern tallgrass prairies, "people and bison herds made each other" (59), as Robert Michael Morrissey's book, People of the Ecotone, argues. The ecotone in the book's title refers to a shifting ecological transition zone of continental importance, in this case the easternmost places where a protruding thumb of tallgrass prairies pushed outward against woodlands on three sides. Centering the Illinois nation among Native communities converging at the midcontinent, People of the Ecotone presents a more-than-human history of a contested region at a time of climate change. Morrissey's excellent book traces the deep history of the ecotone and asks profoundly interdisciplinary questions about the contingencies, choices, and interactions that shaped Indigenous worlds of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Interpreting the French colonial archive and synthesizing insights from the fields of geology, paleobotany, paleoclimatology, archaeology, ecology, and geography, Morrissey presents grounded and specific histories of Indigenous readaptation and realignment. Few scholars have addressed environmental history and Native American history so well in a single work. A number of moments in deep time sets the stage: sixty-six million years ago when the eventual Rocky Mountain range emerged—casting a rain shadow and creating a moisture gradient of relative rainfall from driest to less dry, moving from the western plains to the area where the tallgrass prairies pointed east; the evolution, by around twenty-three million years ago, of the C4 carbon pathway in plants, which refers specifically to an ability to create biomass from four carbon acids and broadly to emerging traits adapted to arid conditions and grazing animals, which later became important as resulting grasses outcompeted less drought-tolerant species across new temperate grasslands; the divergence of early bison from cow-like ancestors about one million years ago; and the speciation of Bison bison, with a tendency to take flight over fight, between five and ten thousand years ago, a genetic change likely shaped by human hunting. For a time, by around 750 C.E., some peoples of the Midwest forged new ways of life around maize and other plants, but in response to intense droughts of the twelfth century, most had dispersed and readjusted to life without agriculture. Simultaneously, pushed by drought, bison from the plains expanded their range eastward, becoming "perhaps the first large herds of bison grazing [End Page 780] in these far eastern prairies during the whole Holocene Epoch"
罗伯特·迈克尔·莫里西(Robert Michael Morrissey)的《过渡带人:早期美洲中心的环境与土著权力》,托马斯·m·维克曼(Thomas M. Wickman)著。罗伯特·迈克尔·莫里西著。惠好环境出版社。西雅图:华盛顿大学出版社,2022。294页。布,纸,电子书。正如罗伯特·迈克尔·莫里西(Robert Michael Morrissey)在《过渡带的人》(people of the Ecotone)一书中所言,在广袤而平坦的东部高草草原上,“人和野牛群相互创造”(59)。书名中的过渡带指的是具有大陆重要性的不断变化的生态过渡带,在这里指的是最东部的地方,那里突出的高草大草原向外伸展,三面与林地相对抗。以伊利诺斯州为中心,在大陆中部聚集的土著社区中,《过渡带人》呈现了气候变化时期一个有争议地区的超越人类的历史。莫里西的优秀著作追溯了过渡带的深刻历史,并就17世纪末和18世纪初形成土著世界的偶然性、选择和相互作用提出了深刻的跨学科问题。莫里西通过对法国殖民时期档案的解读,综合了地质学、古植物学、古气候学、考古学、生态学和地理学等领域的见解,呈现了土著重新适应和重新调整的具体历史。很少有学者能在一本著作中把环境史和美洲原住民史讲得这么好。时间深处的一些时刻奠定了基础:6600万年前,最终形成的落基山脉投下了雨影,形成了相对降雨量从最干燥到不太干燥的湿度梯度,从西部平原移动到高草草原指向东方的地区;大约2300万年前,植物C4碳途径的进化,具体指的是从四种碳酸中产生生物量的能力,以及广泛地指适应干旱条件和放牧动物的新特征,这后来变得重要,因为由此产生的草在新的温带草原上战胜了不那么耐旱的物种;大约一百万年前,早期野牛从类似母牛的祖先中分化出来;在五千到一万年前,美洲野牛的物种形成倾向于逃跑而不是战斗,这一基因变化可能是由人类狩猎造成的。在公元750年左右的一段时间里,中西部的一些民族围绕玉米和其他植物创造了新的生活方式,但为了应对12世纪的严重干旱,大多数人已经分散并重新适应了没有农业的生活。与此同时,在干旱的推动下,平原上的野牛向东扩展了它们的活动范围,成为“也许是整个全新世在这些远东大草原上放牧的第一大群野牛”(12)。在这些新的环境下,来自东部的人们,包括伊利诺伊人的祖先,从13世纪到16世纪来到这里,他们发现了机会,越来越多地投身于野牛狩猎,最重要的是,他们用火塑造了这里的景观。如果不是这些以野牛为中心的新国家不断努力塑造自己的历史,气候可能会更早地把草原和野牛赶走。当16世纪和17世纪小冰河期的寒冷气候加剧时,重新造林可能会收回在干旱和温暖时期被草占据的土地,但相反,有证据表明,在这些生态边缘的人为火灾保持了高草生物群落的完整,从而至少在一段时间内保护了东部野牛群。与气候决定论相比,即使是一些最好的气候史也很容易渗透,莫里西的书描述了土著居民的“机会”,而不是必需品,并展示了伊利诺斯人和其他土著历史人物利用“小冰河期过渡带的新丰饶”的方式经过几代人的努力,当然是在17世纪晚期,伊利诺斯民族和其他在这个过渡地带竞争的土著民族变成了野牛民族:协调地追赶牛群,长途跋涉把兽皮和肋骨运到大定居点,大规模、快速地加工兽皮,分配贸易……
{"title":"People of the Ecotone: Environment and Indigenous Power at the Center of Early America by Robert Michael Morrissey (review)","authors":"Thomas M. Wickman","doi":"10.1353/wmq.2023.a910412","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/wmq.2023.a910412","url":null,"abstract":"Reviewed by: People of the Ecotone: Environment and Indigenous Power at the Center of Early America by Robert Michael Morrissey Thomas M. Wickman People of the Ecotone: Environment and Indigenous Power at the Center of Early America. By Robert Michael Morrissey. Weyerhaeuser Environmental Books. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2022. 294 pages. Cloth, paper, ebook. On the vast and flat stage of the eastern tallgrass prairies, \"people and bison herds made each other\" (59), as Robert Michael Morrissey's book, People of the Ecotone, argues. The ecotone in the book's title refers to a shifting ecological transition zone of continental importance, in this case the easternmost places where a protruding thumb of tallgrass prairies pushed outward against woodlands on three sides. Centering the Illinois nation among Native communities converging at the midcontinent, People of the Ecotone presents a more-than-human history of a contested region at a time of climate change. Morrissey's excellent book traces the deep history of the ecotone and asks profoundly interdisciplinary questions about the contingencies, choices, and interactions that shaped Indigenous worlds of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Interpreting the French colonial archive and synthesizing insights from the fields of geology, paleobotany, paleoclimatology, archaeology, ecology, and geography, Morrissey presents grounded and specific histories of Indigenous readaptation and realignment. Few scholars have addressed environmental history and Native American history so well in a single work. A number of moments in deep time sets the stage: sixty-six million years ago when the eventual Rocky Mountain range emerged—casting a rain shadow and creating a moisture gradient of relative rainfall from driest to less dry, moving from the western plains to the area where the tallgrass prairies pointed east; the evolution, by around twenty-three million years ago, of the C4 carbon pathway in plants, which refers specifically to an ability to create biomass from four carbon acids and broadly to emerging traits adapted to arid conditions and grazing animals, which later became important as resulting grasses outcompeted less drought-tolerant species across new temperate grasslands; the divergence of early bison from cow-like ancestors about one million years ago; and the speciation of Bison bison, with a tendency to take flight over fight, between five and ten thousand years ago, a genetic change likely shaped by human hunting. For a time, by around 750 C.E., some peoples of the Midwest forged new ways of life around maize and other plants, but in response to intense droughts of the twelfth century, most had dispersed and readjusted to life without agriculture. Simultaneously, pushed by drought, bison from the plains expanded their range eastward, becoming \"perhaps the first large herds of bison grazing [End Page 780] in these far eastern prairies during the whole Holocene Epoch\" ","PeriodicalId":51566,"journal":{"name":"WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136128467","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-01DOI: 10.1353/wmq.2023.a910400
Martha Hodes
Rethinking, Revising, Rewriting:An Appeal for Unfinished Scholarship Martha Hodes (bio) IF you're someone who published a scholarly book or article a decade or two ago, when was the last time you reread it? Occasionally, turning the pages of my own long-ago published work, I've found myself wishing I'd selected a different adjective or deleted a repetitive sentence. As historians, our most fulfilling work will alter the historiography in ways small or large. In my "Literature of the Field" graduate seminar on the nineteenth-century United States, I take students through the generational shifts of the scholarship, puzzling out patterns: the questions that drove the field in the 1960s, key arguments historians formulated in the 1990s, or the ways in which scholars are reconsidering well-trodden primary sources in the twenty-first century. As the years elapse, our own work may well be superseded by previously unasked questions, innovative methods, newly unearthed evidence, or novel interpretations. When that happens, how many of us return to our research notes from the past to rethink our method and argument? As Sharon Block writes, "The academic ecosystem is set up for scholarship to be reviewed and critiqued by others, not for self-revision of our own published work."1 Block's "Rewriting the Rape of Rachel" offers a model for reinvigorating [End Page 709] our own past work, research we might have assumed we had finished and were finished with. This endeavor has the potential to add an original dimension to the study and teaching of historiography, as "Rewriting the Rape of Rachel" shows us a senior scholar thinking back on her own pathbreaking contributions to the field of gender and sexuality, with insights gathered from more recent scholarship across a variety of fields. Looking back to her first article, published in 1999, and her first book, published in 2006, Block identifies her necessarily defensive drive to prove the legitimacy of the study of sexuality, and in this way, she inspired me to think about my own first book, published more than twenty-five years ago. I identified with Block's description of writing a monograph built from paragraphs of topic sentences, overflowing with examples and citations. "I did that too!" I murmured, thinking back to the book, White Women, Black Men: Illicit Sex in the Nineteenth-Century South. In one instance, I wrote about two sexual liaisons revealed in freedom lawsuits, backed up by an endnote that referenced six additional such suits. In another spot I listed thirteen "other Maryland cases of fornication and bastardy between white women and black men," while elsewhere I cited twenty-one cases to back up the point that courts could reverse the rape convictions of Black men.2 Heading off critics who might have questioned the occurrence of sex between white women and Black men in the nineteenth-century South, I wrote (necessarily defensively), "My concern is not to point out that sex between white women a
重新思考,修改,重写:对未完成的奖学金的呼吁Martha Hodes(生物)如果你是一个在十年或二十年前出版了一本学术书籍或文章的人,你最后一次重读它是什么时候?偶尔,当我翻看自己很久以前出版的作品时,我发现自己希望自己选择了一个不同的形容词,或者删除了一个重复的句子。作为历史学家,我们最有意义的工作将或多或少地改变史学。在我关于19世纪美国的“田野文学”研究生研讨会上,我带领学生们经历了学术的代际变迁,弄清楚了模式:在20世纪60年代推动该领域发展的问题,历史学家在20世纪90年代形成的关键论点,或者学者们在21世纪重新考虑久经沙场的原始资料的方式。随着时间的流逝,我们自己的工作可能会被以前未被提出的问题、创新的方法、新发现的证据或新的解释所取代。当这种情况发生时,我们中有多少人会回到过去的研究笔记中,重新思考我们的方法和论点?正如莎朗•布洛克(Sharon Block)所写:“学术生态系统的建立是为了让别人对学术进行审查和批评,而不是为了自我修改自己发表的作品。”布洛克的《重写蕾切尔的强奸》(rewrite the Rape of Rachel)为我们自己过去的工作、研究提供了一个重新焕发活力的模式,我们可能以为自己已经完成了,也已经完成了。这一努力有可能为史学的研究和教学增加一个原创的维度,因为“重写蕾切尔的强奸”向我们展示了一位资深学者回顾她自己在性别和性领域的开创性贡献,并从各个领域的最新学术中收集了见解。回顾她1999年发表的第一篇文章和2006年出版的第一本书,布洛克认为她有必要为自己辩护,以证明性研究的合法性。通过这种方式,她启发了我去思考我自己25年前出版的第一本书。我认同布洛克的描述,即写一本由主题句组成的专著,其中充满了例子和引用。“那也是我干的!”我喃喃自语,回想起那本书,《白人女人,黑人男人:19世纪南方的非法性行为》。在一个例子中,我写了两起在自由诉讼中被揭露的性关系,并在尾注中提到了另外六起此类诉讼。在另一个地方,我列举了13个“马里兰州白人妇女和黑人男子之间的通奸和私生子的其他案例”,而在其他地方,我列举了21个案例来支持法院可以推翻对黑人男子的强奸定罪的观点为了避开那些可能质疑19世纪南方白人女性和黑人男性之间发生性行为的批评者,我写道(必然是防御性的),“我关心的不是指出白人女性和黑人男性之间发生性行为的频率特别高。相反,我关心的是,当这种联系确实发生时,南方白人可能会以一种使现代假设复杂化的方式作出反应,”在尾注中(再次为自己辩护)补充说,“无论如何,这里的论点与频率无关。这并不是说必须放弃收集证据的计划,因为这样的汇编对扩大历史研究和那些希望解释不为人知或支离破碎的故事的人都很重要。不过,我们要认识到,在布洛克的分析中,她——还有我,尽管我自己也提出了抗议——通过优先考虑积累来证明其合法性。与此同时,布洛克在回顾她早期的学术研究的同时,大声呼吁用新的、更广泛的方式来书写性史。为了探索性暴力对被侵犯者的意义,她开始在一个超越当地法院判决的背景下理解蕾切尔·戴维斯的创伤,让我们更好地理解蕾切尔的整个生活。布洛克着手调查蕾切尔被强奸前的生活,以及她被强奸后的生活,布洛克运用了猜测的艺术。她的工作…
{"title":"Rethinking, Revising, Rewriting: An Appeal for Unfinished Scholarship","authors":"Martha Hodes","doi":"10.1353/wmq.2023.a910400","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/wmq.2023.a910400","url":null,"abstract":"Rethinking, Revising, Rewriting:An Appeal for Unfinished Scholarship Martha Hodes (bio) IF you're someone who published a scholarly book or article a decade or two ago, when was the last time you reread it? Occasionally, turning the pages of my own long-ago published work, I've found myself wishing I'd selected a different adjective or deleted a repetitive sentence. As historians, our most fulfilling work will alter the historiography in ways small or large. In my \"Literature of the Field\" graduate seminar on the nineteenth-century United States, I take students through the generational shifts of the scholarship, puzzling out patterns: the questions that drove the field in the 1960s, key arguments historians formulated in the 1990s, or the ways in which scholars are reconsidering well-trodden primary sources in the twenty-first century. As the years elapse, our own work may well be superseded by previously unasked questions, innovative methods, newly unearthed evidence, or novel interpretations. When that happens, how many of us return to our research notes from the past to rethink our method and argument? As Sharon Block writes, \"The academic ecosystem is set up for scholarship to be reviewed and critiqued by others, not for self-revision of our own published work.\"1 Block's \"Rewriting the Rape of Rachel\" offers a model for reinvigorating [End Page 709] our own past work, research we might have assumed we had finished and were finished with. This endeavor has the potential to add an original dimension to the study and teaching of historiography, as \"Rewriting the Rape of Rachel\" shows us a senior scholar thinking back on her own pathbreaking contributions to the field of gender and sexuality, with insights gathered from more recent scholarship across a variety of fields. Looking back to her first article, published in 1999, and her first book, published in 2006, Block identifies her necessarily defensive drive to prove the legitimacy of the study of sexuality, and in this way, she inspired me to think about my own first book, published more than twenty-five years ago. I identified with Block's description of writing a monograph built from paragraphs of topic sentences, overflowing with examples and citations. \"I did that too!\" I murmured, thinking back to the book, White Women, Black Men: Illicit Sex in the Nineteenth-Century South. In one instance, I wrote about two sexual liaisons revealed in freedom lawsuits, backed up by an endnote that referenced six additional such suits. In another spot I listed thirteen \"other Maryland cases of fornication and bastardy between white women and black men,\" while elsewhere I cited twenty-one cases to back up the point that courts could reverse the rape convictions of Black men.2 Heading off critics who might have questioned the occurrence of sex between white women and Black men in the nineteenth-century South, I wrote (necessarily defensively), \"My concern is not to point out that sex between white women a","PeriodicalId":51566,"journal":{"name":"WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136128453","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-01DOI: 10.1353/wmq.2023.a910399
Lara Putnam
"Rewriting the Rape of Rachel" and How History Changes Lara Putnam (bio) SHARON Block has written a brilliant reengagement with a historical actor she first wrote about a quarter century ago: Rachel Davis, who, as a teenage indentured servant at the turn of the nineteenth century, suffered repeated sexual assaults by her aunt's husband, spoke out, and ultimately saw him tried and convicted of rape. The subject matter is raw and painful, and Block never loses sight of its moral weight. Yet somehow, without treating Rachel's life as mere fodder for an intellectual excursion, Block manages to take the opportunity to walk us through a meticulously insightful account of how historical knowledge is made—and why, when it is remade at a new point in time, it looks different. Several recent controversies have pushed into the public eye one-dimensional portrayals of historical revision, with critics implying that if historians' narratives change, it can only be evidence of "presentism" driven by current values and political needs.1 Block does take values and politics seriously, but her painstaking account shows up one-dimensional caricatures of historical revision as the straw men they are. "Rewriting the Rape of Rachel" shines light on the multidimensional, interactive evolution through which changing research practice brings historians closer to thoroughly accurate understandings of the past, rather than further from them. E. H. Carr famously declared in 1961 that for historians, facts are like fish. In the commonsense view, he explained, "The historian collects [facts], takes them home, and cooks and serves them in whatever style appeals to him." But on the contrary, according to Carr, "The facts are really not at all like fish on the fishmonger's slab. They are like fish [End Page 701] swimming about in a vast and sometimes inaccessible ocean; and what the historian catches will depend, partly on chance, but mainly on what part of the ocean he chooses to fish in and what tackle he chooses to use—these two factors being, of course, determined by the kind of fish he wants to catch."2 In this article Block again and again spells out the crucial contingencies undergirding her own fact-finding process: the way things that other people or institutions or businesses wrote or compiled or provided made it possible for her to conduct the research she did. In doing so, she makes visible by contrast the voluntarist paradigm limiting Carr's insights. Historians want to catch particular fish, so they choose how, Carr declared. But of course it is not that simple. What kinds of fishing tackle have been manufactured? Whose needs and goals—and whose assumptions about which fish are worth eating—shaped tackle design over time? What happens when climate change shifts ocean currents, altering which fish one might think about using in a recipe? Self-reflective tales that foreground the researcher's actions and choices are not so rare (indeed in some disciplines they are ro
《蕾切尔的强奸》和《历史如何改变劳拉·帕特南》(传记)莎朗·布洛克(SHARON Block)精彩地重新演绎了一位历史演员,她在大约25年前第一次写这本书:蕾切尔·戴维斯(Rachel Davis),在19世纪之交,作为一名十几岁的契约仆人,她遭受了姨妈丈夫的多次性侵犯,她大声说出了自己的想法,最终看到他被审判并被判强奸罪。这个主题是原始而痛苦的,布洛克从未忽视它的道德分量。然而,布洛克并没有把瑞秋的生活仅仅当作智力旅行的素材,而是设法利用这个机会,带我们仔细地了解了历史知识是如何形成的,以及为什么当它在一个新的时间点被重新制作时,它看起来会有所不同。最近的一些争议将历史修正的单维描述推向了公众的视野,批评者暗示,如果历史学家的叙述发生变化,那只能是受当前价值观和政治需求驱动的“现世主义”的证据布洛克确实认真对待价值观和政治,但她煞费苦心的描述显示了对历史修正的一维讽刺,就像稻草人一样。《重写蕾切尔的强奸》揭示了多维度的、互动的演变,通过这种演变,不断变化的研究实践使历史学家更接近于彻底准确地理解过去,而不是远离过去。1961年,e·h·卡尔(E. H. Carr)发表了一句名言:对历史学家来说,事实就像鱼。他解释说,在常识看来,“历史学家收集[事实],把它们带回家,用他喜欢的任何方式烹饪和服务它们。”但恰恰相反,根据卡尔的说法,“事实真的一点也不像鱼贩板上的鱼。”他们就像鱼,在广阔的、有时难以接近的海洋里游来游去;历史学家能钓到什么鱼,部分取决于运气,但主要取决于他选择在海洋的哪一部分钓鱼,以及他选择使用什么钓具——当然,这两个因素是由他想钓的鱼的种类决定的。在这篇文章中,布洛克一次又一次地阐述了支撑她自己的事实调查过程的关键偶然性:其他人、机构或企业编写、汇编或提供的东西的方式使她有可能进行她所做的研究。在这样做的过程中,她通过对比使限制卡尔见解的唯意志论范式变得清晰可见。卡尔宣称,历史学家想要捕捉特定的鱼,所以他们选择如何捕捉。当然,事情并没有那么简单。生产了哪些种类的渔具?谁的需求和目标——以及谁对哪些鱼值得食用的假设——会随着时间的推移而形成钓具设计?当气候变化改变了洋流,改变了人们可能会考虑在食谱中使用的鱼类时,会发生什么?把研究人员的行为和选择放在重要位置的自我反思故事并不罕见(事实上,在某些学科中,这是司空见惯的)。但是,阐明使这些行动和选择成为可能的基础设施条件的工作是另一回事。布洛克不仅告诉我们她在找什么,为什么要找;她详细描述了制度、投资、技术和规范,这些使她以特定的方式获得特定种类的资源,塑造了她能看到的和不能看到的。今天的基础设施包括Ancestry.com及其大量的数字化人口普查、葬礼、运输和兵役记录;数百份19世纪的报纸,通过光学字符识别软件进行数字化和术语搜索;以及通过类似的可搜索的上个世纪历史学术(首先是JSTOR)的海量存储库,即时访问特定地点的上下文知识。布洛克明确指出了信息检索的新技术前景有多么重要。但她并不是一个技术决定论者。她坦率地指出,除了资料保存、获取和分析技术的变化之外,价值观和突出性的变化也带来了影响。阅读她对自己不断发展的研究的描述,我们看到所有这些组成部分是如何相互作用的,从而改变了哪些关于过去的问题看起来既有意义又可能是可以回答的——因此,哪些问题人们正在使用我们的……
{"title":"\"Rewriting the Rape of Rachel\" and How History Changes","authors":"Lara Putnam","doi":"10.1353/wmq.2023.a910399","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/wmq.2023.a910399","url":null,"abstract":"\"Rewriting the Rape of Rachel\" and How History Changes Lara Putnam (bio) SHARON Block has written a brilliant reengagement with a historical actor she first wrote about a quarter century ago: Rachel Davis, who, as a teenage indentured servant at the turn of the nineteenth century, suffered repeated sexual assaults by her aunt's husband, spoke out, and ultimately saw him tried and convicted of rape. The subject matter is raw and painful, and Block never loses sight of its moral weight. Yet somehow, without treating Rachel's life as mere fodder for an intellectual excursion, Block manages to take the opportunity to walk us through a meticulously insightful account of how historical knowledge is made—and why, when it is remade at a new point in time, it looks different. Several recent controversies have pushed into the public eye one-dimensional portrayals of historical revision, with critics implying that if historians' narratives change, it can only be evidence of \"presentism\" driven by current values and political needs.1 Block does take values and politics seriously, but her painstaking account shows up one-dimensional caricatures of historical revision as the straw men they are. \"Rewriting the Rape of Rachel\" shines light on the multidimensional, interactive evolution through which changing research practice brings historians closer to thoroughly accurate understandings of the past, rather than further from them. E. H. Carr famously declared in 1961 that for historians, facts are like fish. In the commonsense view, he explained, \"The historian collects [facts], takes them home, and cooks and serves them in whatever style appeals to him.\" But on the contrary, according to Carr, \"The facts are really not at all like fish on the fishmonger's slab. They are like fish [End Page 701] swimming about in a vast and sometimes inaccessible ocean; and what the historian catches will depend, partly on chance, but mainly on what part of the ocean he chooses to fish in and what tackle he chooses to use—these two factors being, of course, determined by the kind of fish he wants to catch.\"2 In this article Block again and again spells out the crucial contingencies undergirding her own fact-finding process: the way things that other people or institutions or businesses wrote or compiled or provided made it possible for her to conduct the research she did. In doing so, she makes visible by contrast the voluntarist paradigm limiting Carr's insights. Historians want to catch particular fish, so they choose how, Carr declared. But of course it is not that simple. What kinds of fishing tackle have been manufactured? Whose needs and goals—and whose assumptions about which fish are worth eating—shaped tackle design over time? What happens when climate change shifts ocean currents, altering which fish one might think about using in a recipe? Self-reflective tales that foreground the researcher's actions and choices are not so rare (indeed in some disciplines they are ro","PeriodicalId":51566,"journal":{"name":"WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136128458","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-01DOI: 10.1353/wmq.2023.a910401
Sharon Block
Doing Justice with Rachel Sharon Block (bio) I am honored that the scholars in this Forum took time away from other commitments to respond to my article. I am especially grateful for the ways their generative and generous responses have offered me the gift of further reconsideration. Credit also goes to William and Mary Quarterly editor Joshua Piker for putting together a wonderful group of multigenerational interlocutors—their Ph.D.s span almost three decades. Martha Hodes is able to reflect on the early development of the history of sexuality. Lara Putnam entered the profession around a decade later at the turn of the century and brings her expertise in microhistory and digital humanities methods. Midcareer scholars Marisa J. Fuentes and Christine DeLucia address the need to incorporate ethics into history-making grounded in Black feminist studies and Indigenous studies, respectively. Finally, SJ Zhang, an early career literary scholar, brings emotional resonance to her vibrant intellectual analysis of chronology and community. Hodes's reflections include a full-circle moment. My first publication appeared in the Sex, Love, Race volume that she edited.1 There I compared Rachel Davis and Harriet Jacobs to elucidate how slavery and race structured the possibilities of raped women's experiences of and responses to sexual violence. I struggled through scores of drafts of that essay while on a postdoctoral fellowship at the Omohundro Institute (OI), trying to compensate for the fact that my dissertation ended up focusing more on power and patriarchy than individual women's perspectives: their lives had been subsumed under the need to make rape a legitimate topic for historical study. Looking back, I suspect I had neither the skills nor the training to imagine methodological possibilities that seem obvious today. As a new Ph.D., I struggled to fit myself [End Page 715] into the constraints and commands of the historical profession. I wanted my work to be legible to those in positions of authority (especially those on hiring committees), and I was less sure that I should make myself fully legible. My commitment to confronting inequities, my personal pain for the people I studied, my fear that claims of meritocracy were not meant for me—all of these seemed far too personal to share with a profession that sometimes seemed less than welcoming. It felt far safer to be a historian of rape behind the privilege of an Ivy League Ph.D. and a prestigious postdoctoral fellowship. Several of the Forum writers picked up on my discussion of the contested role of advocacy in historical study in "Rewriting the Rape of Rachel." As I noted, when I was first writing about rape, senior colleagues would publicly warn me about the dangers of what they labeled advocacy history, under the rationale that not-white-male historians were unable to write objectively about their group's history. Even today, when more professional historians embrace historical advocacy to bring the
与蕾切尔·莎伦·布洛克一起伸张正义我很荣幸本次论坛的学者们从其他工作中抽出时间来回应我的文章。我特别感谢他们富有创造力和慷慨的回应,让我有机会进一步反思。《威廉与玛丽季刊》的编辑约书亚·派克也要感谢他,因为他组织了一群了不起的多代对话者——他们的博士学位跨越了近30年。玛莎·霍兹能够反思性行为历史的早期发展。劳拉·帕特南在大约十年后的世纪之交进入了这个行业,带来了她在微观历史和数字人文方法方面的专业知识。职业生涯中期的学者玛丽莎·j·富恩特斯和克里斯汀·德卢西亚分别以黑人女权主义研究和土著研究为基础,探讨了将伦理学纳入历史创造的必要性。最后,张sj,一位早期的文学学者,在她对年代和社会的充满活力的理性分析中带来了情感共鸣。霍兹的反思包括一个完整的循环时刻。我的第一篇文章发表在她编辑的《性、爱、种族》一书中在那里,我比较了蕾切尔·戴维斯和哈丽特·雅各布斯,以阐明奴隶制和种族是如何构成被强奸妇女对性暴力的经历和反应的可能性的。在奥莫亨德罗研究所(Omohundro Institute,简称OI)做博士后的时候,我艰难地修改了那篇论文的几十个草稿,试图弥补我的论文最终更多地关注权力和父权制,而不是女性个人的视角:她们的生活被纳入了让强奸成为历史研究的合法主题的需要之下。回想起来,我怀疑自己既没有技能,也没有受过训练,无法想象今天看来显而易见的方法论可能性。作为一名新博士,我努力使自己适应历史专业的约束和要求。我希望我的作品对那些掌权的人(尤其是那些在招聘委员会的人)来说清晰可辨,但我不太确定我是否应该让自己完全清晰可辨。我致力于对抗不平等,我为我所研究的人感到痛苦,我担心精英统治的主张并不适合我——所有这些似乎都太私人了,无法与一个有时似乎不太受欢迎的职业分享。作为一名研究强奸的历史学家,拥有常春藤盟校的博士学位和享有声望的博士后奖学金,感觉要安全得多。论坛的几位作者在《重写蕾切尔的强奸》(rewrite the Rape of Rachel)中提到了我对倡导在历史研究中有争议的角色的讨论。正如我所指出的,当我第一次写关于强奸的文章时,资深同事会公开警告我,他们称之为“倡导历史”的东西很危险,理由是非白人男性历史学家无法客观地书写他们群体的历史。即使在今天,当越来越多的专业历史学家接受历史倡导,将过去与现在联系起来时,仍然有人对提倡现在直接告知过去的做法持怀疑态度2023年《纽约客》的一篇文章援引历史学家大卫·布莱特的话说,“如今在年轻的历史学家中,不仅是年轻的历史学家,有时倾向于把主张置于学术之上”,似乎这两者必然处于紧张状态德卢西亚提供了一个有价值的纠正,与WMQ的读者分享了一些有影响力的社会和经济正义的努力,这些努力在雷切尔的生活环境附近运作。正如批判性大学研究学者所表明的那样,“绝大多数动员源于社区需求和生存和福祉的生活需求,而不是大学委员会或学术专著的结果。”用德卢西亚的话来说,我们如何才能更好地将“历史学术研究与面向未来的司法转型”联系起来?同样,张要求学者们“将了解过去发生的事情的愿望与我们当前生存所必需的迫切的创造性关系结合起来。”张的这篇令人回味的文章让我很感激,因为新一代的人很少受到档案限制的束缚,这些限制使历史学家倾向于狭隘的叙述和狭隘的参与习惯。她建议在…
{"title":"Doing Justice with Rachel","authors":"Sharon Block","doi":"10.1353/wmq.2023.a910401","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/wmq.2023.a910401","url":null,"abstract":"Doing Justice with Rachel Sharon Block (bio) I am honored that the scholars in this Forum took time away from other commitments to respond to my article. I am especially grateful for the ways their generative and generous responses have offered me the gift of further reconsideration. Credit also goes to William and Mary Quarterly editor Joshua Piker for putting together a wonderful group of multigenerational interlocutors—their Ph.D.s span almost three decades. Martha Hodes is able to reflect on the early development of the history of sexuality. Lara Putnam entered the profession around a decade later at the turn of the century and brings her expertise in microhistory and digital humanities methods. Midcareer scholars Marisa J. Fuentes and Christine DeLucia address the need to incorporate ethics into history-making grounded in Black feminist studies and Indigenous studies, respectively. Finally, SJ Zhang, an early career literary scholar, brings emotional resonance to her vibrant intellectual analysis of chronology and community. Hodes's reflections include a full-circle moment. My first publication appeared in the Sex, Love, Race volume that she edited.1 There I compared Rachel Davis and Harriet Jacobs to elucidate how slavery and race structured the possibilities of raped women's experiences of and responses to sexual violence. I struggled through scores of drafts of that essay while on a postdoctoral fellowship at the Omohundro Institute (OI), trying to compensate for the fact that my dissertation ended up focusing more on power and patriarchy than individual women's perspectives: their lives had been subsumed under the need to make rape a legitimate topic for historical study. Looking back, I suspect I had neither the skills nor the training to imagine methodological possibilities that seem obvious today. As a new Ph.D., I struggled to fit myself [End Page 715] into the constraints and commands of the historical profession. I wanted my work to be legible to those in positions of authority (especially those on hiring committees), and I was less sure that I should make myself fully legible. My commitment to confronting inequities, my personal pain for the people I studied, my fear that claims of meritocracy were not meant for me—all of these seemed far too personal to share with a profession that sometimes seemed less than welcoming. It felt far safer to be a historian of rape behind the privilege of an Ivy League Ph.D. and a prestigious postdoctoral fellowship. Several of the Forum writers picked up on my discussion of the contested role of advocacy in historical study in \"Rewriting the Rape of Rachel.\" As I noted, when I was first writing about rape, senior colleagues would publicly warn me about the dangers of what they labeled advocacy history, under the rationale that not-white-male historians were unable to write objectively about their group's history. Even today, when more professional historians embrace historical advocacy to bring the","PeriodicalId":51566,"journal":{"name":"WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136127421","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-01DOI: 10.1353/wmq.2023.a910396
SJ Zhang
Abstract: This Article Forum extends and amplifies the conversation begun by Sharon Block's innovative article in this issue, "Rewriting the Rape of Rachel: Historical Methods, Historical Justice." Block's article is the initial offering in the William and Mary Quarterly 's "Methods and Practices" section, and SJ Zhang, Christine DeLucia, Marisa J. Fuentes, Lara Putnam, and Martha Hodes engage with Block's work by reflecting on their own research and methods. Block provides a response for the Forum.
摘要:本次文章论坛是对莎伦·布洛克在本期创新文章《改写蕾切尔的强奸:历史方法与历史正义》所引发的对话的延伸和放大。布洛克的文章是《威廉与玛丽季刊》“方法与实践”部分的第一篇文章,SJ Zhang、Christine DeLucia、Marisa J. Fuentes、Lara Putnam和Martha Hodes通过反思他们自己的研究和方法来参与布洛克的工作。Block为论坛提供了一个响应。
{"title":"\"To Share How We Know \": Mourning and Meaning-Making in \"Rewriting the Rape of Rachel\"","authors":"SJ Zhang","doi":"10.1353/wmq.2023.a910396","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/wmq.2023.a910396","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: This Article Forum extends and amplifies the conversation begun by Sharon Block's innovative article in this issue, \"Rewriting the Rape of Rachel: Historical Methods, Historical Justice.\" Block's article is the initial offering in the William and Mary Quarterly 's \"Methods and Practices\" section, and SJ Zhang, Christine DeLucia, Marisa J. Fuentes, Lara Putnam, and Martha Hodes engage with Block's work by reflecting on their own research and methods. Block provides a response for the Forum.","PeriodicalId":51566,"journal":{"name":"WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY","volume":"68 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136128462","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}