“Indians”: Textualism, Morality, and the Problem of History

Textualism: Strict adherence to a text, especially of the Scriptures

When Tompkins uses the words “In simpler language” it made me feel like I wasn’t smart enough to understand her first sentence. That’s probably not what she intended (or maybe it was) but I would have said, “To extrapolate…” or “To specify…” etc.

Page 656: “This was the kind of past ‘mistake’ which, presumably, we studied history in order to avoid repeating.” This theme is a common one in some of the essays we have read.
The word ethnography has become ubiquitous….
I am impressed with the objective viewpoint Tompkins is able to take (given that I can believe what she writes) in analyzing the different accounts and it is cool that she thinks this is an important subject enough to find the truth.

So far, this essay flows nicely and is easy to understand.
I wasn’t aware that whites were taken captive by Indians so often. I’ve seen Dances With Wolves but I didn’t know it actually occurred.
Page 666: “Kupperman’s book marks a watershed in writings on Euorpean-Indian relations…” I had to look up ‘watershed’ cuz I’ve never heard it used in this context:
Watershed: A critical point that marks a division or a change of course; a turning point

This essay is so in order and flows neatly. She thought this, so she did that and discovered this and so on.
I liked the ending. It’s progressive and leads me to think that she will continue to try to solve this problem.