Loading...
That Native Americans in colonial North America were thrust into a world at least as new as that confronting the ever-increasing numbers of European immigrants and transplanted Africans is a simple yet important truth that students of the period have overlooked. The failure to explore the Native Americans' new world helps to explain why the history of the colonial period often remains a history of Europeans and Africans. One reason Native Americans have been left out may be historians' apparent inability to fit them into the New World theme, a theme that exerts a powerful hold on historians' imagination. From Turner to Allen, from Herskovits to Littlefield, scholars have analyzed encounters between peoples from the Old World and conditions in the New World. Since Native Americans had not recently arrived from a faraway land, it must have seemed logical to exclude them.
Recent research, however, suggests that perhaps historians should think of a "world" as the physical and cultural milieu within which people live and a "new world" as a dramatically different milieu demanding basic changes in ways of life. Considered in these terms, the experience of Native Americans was more closely akin to that of immigrants, and the idea of an encounter between worlds can, and indeed must, include the original inhabitants of America.
In the passage, the author is primarily concerned with
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| That Native Americans in colonial North America were thrust into a world at least as new as that confronting the ever-increasing numbers of European immigrants and transplanted Africans is a simple yet important truth that students of the period have overlooked. | What it says: Native Americans faced just as much change in colonial times as Europeans and Africans did, but historians have ignored this fact. What it does: Presents the main thesis/central claim of the passage Source/Type: Author's opinion/argument Connection to Previous Sentences: This is our starting point - no previous sentences to connect to Visualization: Think of three groups all facing major life changes: • Europeans: 100,000+ people moving to America (big change) • Africans: 500,000+ people transported to America (huge change) • Native Americans: Millions of people whose world was transformed by colonization (equally big change, but historians missed this) What We Know So Far: Native Americans experienced as much "newness" as immigrants What We Don't Know Yet: Why historians overlooked this, what examples support this claim Reading Strategy Insight: This opening sentence gives us the entire argument upfront - everything else will support this central claim |
| The failure to explore the Native Americans' new world helps to explain why the history of the colonial period often remains a history of Europeans and Africans. | What it says: Because historians didn't study how Native Americans experienced change, colonial history focuses mainly on Europeans and Africans. What it does: Explains the consequence/result of the problem identified in sentence 1 Source/Type: Author's analysis of historical scholarship Connection to Previous Sentences: • Sentence 1 told us: Historians overlooked Native American experiences • NOW Sentence 2: Shows the result of this oversight - unbalanced historical narratives • This directly builds on sentence 1 by explaining "so what?" Visualization: Historical scholarship pie chart: • European history: 60% coverage • African history: 30% coverage • Native American history: 10% coverage Why? Because historians didn't recognize Native Americans as experiencing "newness" Reading Strategy Insight: Feel confident here - this isn't new complexity, it's just explaining why sentence 1 matters |
| One reason Native Americans have been left out may be historians' apparent inability to fit them into the New World theme, a theme that exerts a powerful hold on historians' imagination. | What it says: Historians might exclude Native Americans because they can't figure out how to include them in "New World" studies, which is a very popular historical approach. What it does: Begins to explain the cause of the problem identified in sentences 1-2 Source/Type: Author's hypothesis about historians' thinking Connection to Previous Sentences: • Sentence 1: Historians overlooked Native Americans • Sentence 2: This caused unbalanced history • NOW Sentence 3: Here's WHY historians overlooked them • This continues building the same argument - explaining the reasoning behind the problem Visualization: Historians' mental framework: • "New World theme" = Popular organizing principle for 200+ years of scholarship • Fits Europeans: ✓ (they traveled to new world) • Fits Africans: ✓ (they were brought to new world) • Fits Native Americans: ? (they were already here) What We Know So Far: Problem identified, consequence explained, cause being explored What We Don't Know Yet: Specific examples of this theme, the author's solution Reading Strategy Insight: Still building the problem setup - no new complexity introduced |
| From Turner to Allen, from Herskovits to Littlefield, scholars have analyzed encounters between peoples from the Old World and conditions in the New World. | What it says: Many famous historians (gives 4 examples) have studied how Old World people met New World conditions. What it does: Provides concrete evidence for the "New World theme" mentioned in sentence 3 Source/Type: Factual evidence about scholarly work Connection to Previous Sentences: • Sentence 3 told us: "New World theme" is powerful in historians' imagination • NOW Sentence 4: Here's proof - look at all these major scholars who used this approach • This is supporting evidence, not new information Visualization: Scholarly tradition timeline: • Turner (1890s): Old World Europeans → New World frontier • Allen (mid-1900s): Old World peoples → New World encounters • Herskovits (1940s): Old World Africans → New World adaptations • Littlefield (1970s): Old World cultures → New World changes Common pattern: Old World people experiencing New World conditions Reading Strategy Insight: These are just examples proving sentence 3's point - don't get overwhelmed by the names |
| Since Native Americans had not recently arrived from a faraway land, it must have seemed logical to exclude them. | What it says: It probably made sense to historians to leave out Native Americans because they didn't come from somewhere else. What it does: Completes the explanation of why historians excluded Native Americans Source/Type: Author's logical analysis of historians' reasoning Connection to Previous Sentences: • Sentences 3-4 told us: Historians focus on "Old World people meeting New World conditions" • NOW Sentence 5: Since Native Americans weren't "Old World people," historians excluded them • This completes the cause-and-effect explanation started in sentence 3 Visualization: Historians' logical framework: • Europeans: Came from faraway Old World → Include ✓ • Africans: Came from faraway Old World → Include ✓ • Native Americans: Already here → Exclude ✗ What We Know So Far: Problem, consequence, and complete cause all identified What We Don't Know Yet: The author's solution or alternative approach Reading Strategy Insight: We've now fully understood the problem setup. The author will shift to proposing a solution |
| Recent research, however, suggests that perhaps historians should think of a "world" as the physical and cultural milieu within which people live and a "new world" as a dramatically different milieu demanding basic changes in ways of life. | What it says: New studies suggest historians should define "world" as people's living environment and "new world" as any dramatically changed environment that forces people to change how they live. What it does: Introduces the solution/alternative approach to the problem Source/Type: Evidence from recent research (factual basis for author's argument) Connection to Previous Sentences: • Sentences 1-5: Explained the problem with traditional "New World" thinking • NOW Sentence 6: Here's a different way to think about "New World" • The word "however" signals this is the turning point - from problem to solution Visualization: Traditional vs. New Definition: Traditional "New World": Geographic location that Old World people travel to • Includes: Europeans and Africans (traveled to America) • Excludes: Native Americans (already in America) New "New World": Any dramatically changed environment • Includes: Anyone whose milieu changed drastically • Could include: Europeans, Africans, AND Native Americans Reading Strategy Insight: This is simplification, not complication - the author is offering a clearer, more inclusive definition |
| Considered in these terms, the experience of Native Americans was more closely akin to that of immigrants, and the idea of an encounter between worlds can, and indeed must, include the original inhabitants of America. | What it says: Using this new definition, Native Americans' experience was similar to immigrants' experiences, and any study of "world encounters" must include Native Americans. What it does: Applies the new definition to reach the conclusion; completes the argument Source/Type: Author's logical conclusion based on the new framework Connection to Previous Sentences: • Sentence 1: Stated that Native Americans experienced as much "newness" as immigrants • Sentences 2-5: Explained why historians missed this • Sentence 6: Offered new definition of "new world" • NOW Sentence 7: Uses new definition to prove sentence 1 was correct • This brings us full circle - we're back to the main thesis with proof Visualization: Under New Definition: • European immigrants: Old familiar milieu → Dramatically different American milieu • Native Americans: Old familiar milieu → Dramatically different colonial milieu • Result: Both groups experienced "new world" - both should be included in historical studies What We Know Now: Complete argument from problem identification to solution implementation Reading Strategy Insight: Feel confident - this ending restates and reinforces the opening. The passage has come full circle with a clear, logical argument |
To argue that historians should change how they think about the "New World" concept so that Native Americans can be included in colonial period studies.
The author builds their argument by first identifying a problem with current historical scholarship, then explaining why this problem exists, and finally offering a solution:
Native Americans should be included in "New World" historical studies because they experienced just as much dramatic change to their way of life during the colonial period as European and African immigrants did.
This question asks us to identify the author's primary purpose throughout the entire passage. We need to determine what the author is fundamentally trying to accomplish - whether they're presenting new facts, fixing errors, suggesting changes, summarizing debates, or evaluating conflicting views.
Our passage analysis reveals a clear three-part structure that points directly to the author's primary concern:
The passage structure clearly shows the author is not just describing what happened or presenting facts - they're actively advocating for change. The key transition word "however" in sentence 6 signals the shift from problem analysis to solution proposal. The author concludes with strong prescriptive language: "the idea of an encounter between worlds can, and indeed must, include the original inhabitants of America." This suggests the author is primarily concerned with recommending a new methodological approach to historical scholarship.