Updated outline and notes

Turns out that–not surprisingly for anyone who knows me–I was a bit ambitious with my initial plans, and that whole outline won’t work because I don’t have the space. I’ve cut pieces of that initial outline, as you can see below–which is just as well, because I’ve come up with additional pieces I’d like to address.

This is particularly interesting to me because part of my thought process in approaching this paper in the first place was that I would be working with a limited and very manageable source base, a very specific historical event, and several historiographies that were familiar and clearly intersected. Thus I expected the paper to be fairly short and to the point, which hasn’t turned out to be the case as I’ve worked on it–a reminder that writing is a process and a way to think through analysis and argument, not something that emerges fully formed. It also doesn’t help that the evidence I tracked down later–Nangenutch’s escape, subsequent orders regarding him and the Montauketts generally–have percolated and prompted more substantive comments that fit a slightly tweaked larger argument that I’ll have to develop in a later version of this paper.

 

Updated outline:

I. Summary of Nangenutch’s assault on Mary

II. Comment on sources

III. Historiography–mainly Block (sexual power) and Strong (Montauketts and Nangenutch), but also Fischer/Morgan (personal agency and individual desire)

IV. Preview/argument

V. Montaukett background/status in 1668

VI. Nangenutch status–dual/duel identity

VII. Elements of sexual power exercised in the assault, creating/defining consent

VII. Earlier offenses (theft, assault) and challenge to English patriarchy

VIII. Conclusion–Nangenutch>Will, Indian>English

 

CUT sections:

VIII. Indigenous pieces–justice, responsibility, rationale

IX. Escape/warning out/ban

X. Reverberations on Montaukett community, larger significance, racial implications

 

Additional pieces:

-opportunistic rather than planned

-second Mary Miller testimony

-commentaries from local histories (one says it was tried in Hartford, CT)

-apologizes to Mary

-John=husbandman

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *