Revise my essay as per comment given by My teacher

5 pages, double spaced, footnotes

When assigned with the reading of DuVal’s, “Native Ground”, I expected the book to present the simple “Indian versus European” storyline that has been reiterated time and time again, school year after school year. This storyline, one of which many readers can cite backwards out of sheer redundancy, consists of a traditional narrative.; It primarily focuses focusing on the victimization of natives and destruction caused by Europeans in pre-18th century colonization. Although I expected much of the same with DuVal’s work, her book I was convinced that this book would explain the same traditional viewpoint, so it was startling when DuVal presented a new perspective that I had never studied nor considered. Refreshingly, DuVal effectively argues that for long stretches of time, the Native Americans Indian people held the power in the Arkansas Valley: geographically, culturally, and politically. She presents her argument simply, stating on page 4, “Native Americans, not Europeans, controlled the Arkansas Valley”FOOTNOTE. Comment by Paulla Santos: Say more about this. Also, you should put somewhere something about her idea of the “native ground.” Comment by Paulla Santos: Generally, don’t end paragraphs with evidence. Evidence must have analysis attached to it.

By utilizing her primary sources (like the “Territorial Papers of the United States” edited by Clarence Carter) and interpreting them, the author successfully reminds her audience that history consists of various viewpoints is double-sided and we are often presented with one side of the story. Because this primary source is a national document that is fact-based, one can surmise that DuVal’s perspective is supported by this primary source and the geographical facts contained within it. Although one may argue that DuVal is merely “pro-Indian” in opinion and not, in fact, fairly discussing history, her primary source serves as a “backup” to fit her nontraditional argument. Because this primary source is documented by the government, its citation in DuVal’s work may provide her argument with more weight and credibility. Due to the defined language and simplicity of her primary source, I believe that she analyzed the document fairly. Comment by Paulla Santos: Don’t put specifics in topic sentences. Topic sentences are meant to be “mini-arguments.” They are introducing what is to be argued in the paragraph. Comment by Paulla Santos: Careful. Remember all sources have bias. Comment by Paulla Santos: I would suggest dedicating a paragraph for your discussion of her primary sources. Introduce the variety sources she uses (look in the notes section at the back of her book). Then discuss the specific primary source that you have chosen. Break it apart. Don’t just tell me “yeah. it was convincing because facts.” 😊 Comment by Paulla Santos: Also, I think it would flow better if you placed this paragraph after your paragraphs discussing the various parts/sections/supporting arguments of her book.

In the introduction, of her book, DuVal begins citing the opportunities presented within Arkansas Valley (what we now call Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Colorado), or the “heart of the continent”FOOTNOTE. Because the land was not owned by European empires, it was largely dominated - in both a cultural and political sense- by native people. The prosperous land is described on page 9 as a. region “abounded in natural resources”FOOTNOTE. These resources made way for trade and relationships amongst cultures, which led to the early development of cultural interdependence and communications. Comment by Paulla Santos: Again, make this topic sentence a mini argument. (Keep this in mind for the rest of your topic sentences). Also, I would suggest looking at specific chapters within the book (not the introduction because that is where she “introduces” the argument.

In her book, DuVal focuses primarily on the native groups within the Arkansas Valley: the Mississippians, Quapaws, Caddos, Cherokees, Chickasaws. In addition to discussing the inner-native relations, she also introduced the territorial offenders, or Europeans, who strived for control of the Arkansas Valley region. But the Europeans were not successful in their attempts to at controlling the region. Instead, it was the natives who held control of the Arkansas Valley. DuVal argues that because the natives set the standard for European engagement in the Arkansas Valley, peaceful colonization occurredFOOTNOTE. Comment by Paulla Santos: You say this many times. Show me through evidence and your analysis.

Alluding to the control of the native people, DuVal states, on page 4, “ Cohesive native peoples preferred to maintain their own sovereign identities and make independent decisions regarding the way their ran their societies and the uses to which they put their land and resources”. FOOTNOTE This quote presents a storyline that opposes other “Indian and European” storylines, which are riddled by European dominance, mass native killings and the victimization of native people.

The author presents a clear timeline of the Europeans who adapted to native ways when she said on page 5, “The French and Spanish tried to construct the exploitative exchange relations that theorists would later call dependency, but they failed in the Arkansas Valley”.FOOTNOTE Upon this realization, the Europeans “molded their economic, political and social policies to the Indian desires and demands”. FOOTNOTE Comment by Paulla Santos: Unnecessary paragraph.

The book’s main contribution to society is its change of perspective. It is of value to Indian culture and their historical reputation because it focuses on native power instead of their traditionally-acclaimed subservience. DuVal argues that the “dependency theory”, or theory that the Indians were dependent upon the Europeans for political and social systems, does not fit the happenings within the Arkansas Valley.FOOTNOTE Comment by Paulla Santos: You have already said this in your introduction. I would suggest cutting this paragraph and elaborating DuVal’s contribution more in the intro.

By showing that the Europeans were more dependent on the Indians than the Indians were on them, DuVal also devalues the dominance of European culture in native locations. She states, says on page 5, “ Before Europeans arrived, the people of the Arkansas Valley already participated in a continental system in which they exchanged necessities and luxury goods and at times altered production to meet demand of their exchange partners”. FOOTNOTE The natural resources of the Arkansas Valley propelled the cultural maturity of the native people- they understood trade prior to the beginnings of European colonization. Comment by Paulla Santos: VERY GOOD TOPIC SENTENCE.

The depiction of cross-cultural independence (with emphasis on Indian power) prior to the European control of the Arkansas Valley is what makes DuVal’s viewpoint unique. With the power that they held, Indians had the “right of way” in shaping the cultural and professional lives of the Europeans to fit the native lifestyle. The natives and Europeans thus collaborated on exchanging goods, diplomatic relations, sharing land and resources, and on warfare. Comment by Paulla Santos: Shallow statement.

DuVal argues that European adaptation to the ways of the native people was simpler and more successful for the European empires, as well. In highlighting the Osage and French trading exchanges, DuVal explained on page 6, “Rather than weakness, interdependence was a form of power”. FOOTNOTE By focusing on native control and dual-cultural success, this book disassembles contemporary exaggerations of European dominance.

Likewise, this book’s emphasis on the Indian perspective and the power of their independence guides the reader in understanding the significance of Arkansas Valley and consequential Indian dominance. DuVal’s book is useful to society for it can also provoke other stories of Indian power and success in this time period and awaken new perspectives. DuVal’s book remains a favorite of mine for her non-traditional viewpoint of history and I highly recommend reading it. Comment by Paulla Santos: Rearrange paragraph so you are more blatant as to why you would recommend this book. Comment by Paulla Santos: Liv, Your paper is off to a good start. However, when pulling examples from the book to discuss DuVal’s book, it suffers from a sporadic quantity overall quality. In other words, you bring in SO many different points in the book about various groups, but you barely provide enough evidence with convincing analysis within your EIGHT body paragraphs. What I suggest: Select 2 or three chapters within the book and discuss what DuVal argues in each (describe how she does it and why it is relevant to her overall argument(s). Provide specific examples). As a rule of thumb, a paragraph in a History paper has two or three pieces of evidence to analyze that ties to the main thesis/argument. These are close examinations. Not brief statements with one piece of evidence. Hopefully all this makes sense. If not, feel free to contact me. I know this seems like a lot to do, but it is doable, especially when you get into the flow. Happy writing! 😊

Kathleen DuVal, Native Ground: Indians and Colonists in the Heart of the Continent (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006), 46.

Megan Stanton, class lecture, “The Arkansas Valley,” Oct. 5, 2017, History/Chican@ and Latin@ Studies 461, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

1

2