Native American Women and Agriculture: A Seneca Case

StudyBy Mallori Smith

What is the author trying to argue?

• Seneca women were strong

• Steadfast in their traditions, beliefs, ways of life through war, sickness, depletion of their homes, lands, crops, families.

• Were capable to do either “man’s work” and/or “women’s” duties.

How does the author try to explain the argument?

• Seneca women controlled ag. Production• Held high social and community status• Owned land• Food distribution• Authority in lawmaking • Spokeswomen for their cause• “women of the longhouse”; ran households

and family life

Does the author assume the “white middle-class woman’s norm”?

• No. This article is from the viewpoints of Native American women and also white Europeans.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths

• Thorough description of Seneca women

• Clear picture of what Seneca endured

• Historically educational/enlightening

• Clear point made

• Easily understood

• Aroused interest and emotion

Strengths and Weaknesses contd.

Weaknesses

• Not enough information given by Seneca women

• Most direct accounts were from White men

Diversity Training Manual

Dehumanization

1. Seneca’s were savage

2. Incapable of “normal” functioning because they were non-white women

3. Ethnicity/race, sex, gender contribute to Seneca oppression

Diversity Training Manual contd.

Homogenization

1. Seneca only able to do same jobs as White women

2. Native Americans were all savages with improper traditions and beliefs

3. Native Americans were all ignorant and their women weak and powerless

Diversity Training Manual contd.

De-Contextualization

1. Seneca women refused removal from their land because they were stubborn, witchcraft-practicing females

2. Their refusal not attributed to their strong beliefs and loyalty to their people, lands, and traditions

The End

Jensen, J.M. Native American Women and Agriculture: A Seneca Case Study.

Sex Roles, 1977, 3, 423-441.