Kathleen DuVal
Author of Independence Lost: Lives on the Edge of the American Revolution
About the Author
Image credit: From UNC Website
Works by Kathleen DuVal
Associated Works
Geography and Ethnography: Perceptions of the World in Pre-Modern Societies (2010) — Contributor — 8 copies
Tagged
Common Knowledge
- Canonical name
- DuVal, Kathleen
- Birthdate
- 1970
- Gender
- female
- Nationality
- USA
- Birthplace
- Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA
Members
Reviews
Lists
Awards
You May Also Like
Associated Authors
Statistics
- Works
- 6
- Also by
- 1
- Members
- 468
- Popularity
- #52,559
- Rating
- 3.7
- Reviews
- 5
- ISBNs
- 18
- Languages
- 1
reader: Carolina Hoyos
OPD: 2024
format: 21:30 audible audiobook (752 pages)
acquired: November 17 listened: Nov 18 – Dec 26
rating: 3
genre/style: History theme: random audio
locations: North America
about the author: An American history and professor at UNC. She was born in Fayetteville, AR in 1970.
hmm. There are two different things to review. One is that it's very informative in a really nice unique way. The other is the nature of the language, the way the author tries to reframe history through selective use of words, and sometimes idioms.
The main issue while listening was the language. This is a work of historical correction that is trying to change the reader's perspective of the Native American position historically and currently. That's ok in theory, I think. But she's not really presenting any new information. So, there is weight on the agenda, and the history is managed, that is manipulated, to match that agenda. The main problem for me was the way the language was chosen. Can we reshape history through language? Of course. But is it meaningful? It doesn't change the history. Also, it's a forced thing, which means it's no better, no more sound, than all the other histories it's trying to correct. It's just dancing on the high end of an unbalanced seesaw. I feel pretty strongly that the way to correct history is to tell as it actually is (or actually is perceived), and in the most natural appropriate language; to look at historical players from as real a position as you can, as you're capable of. And an historian should press themselves to see and present different perspectives. That's, for me, the correction. Reframing history to through words, sometimes technically meaningless idioms, is information management.
What DuVal actively tries to do is balance native and colonial cultures by showing the sophistication of native culture (good), and by downplaying the sophistication of European explorers (bad). She spends a lot of time in the era where European colonial existence was fragile, based on supplies from little boats traveling across the Atlantic Ocean. The natives were in a position of strength. That's important for history. But deciding the ones from the boats are from an inferior culture is pressing things. As for the idioms, she will say that the Europeans were "exactly wrong", or that the natives 'were not the least bit interested". You can't argue with that, since technically it doesn't mean anything. And in actuality just means roughly "I hate stupid colonialism", or something equivalent.
The good aspect is the long view of native history, and the response of native tribes to their changing realities as Europeans arrived and began to settle, and the population began to explode. Natives were happy with some towns of exposed European settlers bringing technology and metals and guns that they didn't have other access to. But native populations were stabilized. When there were 100,000 Indians* east of the Mississippi and a few thousand settlers, it was one world. But when there 100,000 native tribe members and a million in a newly independent American nation, there was a big problem. Duval gives dignity to the continental retreat, showing the various situations of different tribes and their many different ways of managing their pressures. Cherokees developed their own alphabet and wrote up their own government and constitution. But still lost their land. Lumbee's in North Carolina purchased their land privately. There was no legal mechanism to remove them. So, they are still there. She doesn't go that deep into the Lumbees, but elsewhere notes that to maintain their land within private ownership meant the land could easily get picked up piece by piece as various families came in need. This is a problem in later developments. She also covers the Iriquois tribes, the plains tribes (mainly through the Kiowa and some on the Osage), and the New Mexico tribes who treated different regional Spanish centers as different nations, effectively. (Some tribes would capture inhabitants from one Spanish outpost and sell them as slaves in another Spanish settlement.) The farther west a tribe was in, say 1800, the more time they had to hold off European control. The Kiowas and Comanches, once they developed their treaties, ruled the southwest plains a long time. This is all good stuff. Fascinating.
Along the tragic elements and the continual loss of native land to American settlers and American natural resource hounds, was one that struck me. Native Americans were put on reservations owned communally. Enlightened, if ill-informed, white Americans wanted to Americanize the natives by making them full citizens and getting them involved in the national economy. This is around 1900, the melting pot era. The result, although resisted, caused native tribes to lose over half the land on the reservations.
I gained a lot from this book. But I struggled with what she was doing with the language. I'm not sure if it's a political leaning on my part, but I can't come to any peace with that aspect. It's plainly manipulative to me, and confusing. I'm not against rethinking history. But I want to facts to do the talking, not the author's choice of language. So, sadly, I can't recommend this one without that caution.
*She uses the word Indian a lot and seems to suggest it's a word of pride.
2024
https://www.librarything.com/topic/365030#8712434… (more)