Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- mccurdy_gentlemen_and_soldiers [2026/01/23 05:15] – [Manhood in Jamestown] khamilt3
+++ mccurdy_gentlemen_and_soldiers [2026/01/23 21:51] (current) – jjardine
@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 The discussion of gentlemen and soldiers shows how manhood was defined through honor, discipline, and public reputation rather than purely physical strength. The reading contextualizes masculinity as a social performance shaped by class and military service, where gentlemanly restraint and soldierly courage both upheld authority and civic order. This framework reveals how early American society used ideals of manliness to legitimize power, hierarchy, and political participation.-- (Caitlyn Edwards)
+The examination of British hierarchical structure and it's unique relationship to both social status and Military service allows for further understanding of the shifting social dynamics present both in later England and in the Jamestown colony. Seeing the norms surrounding manhood and status be challenged by the lack of structure in the colony serves as an excellent insight into how norms shift when strained by scarcity both in resources and social structure. ( J.D.J. )
 ===== Military Manhood =====
@@ Line 25: / Line 27: @@
 Women not only increased the population of the Jamestown colony, but they also gave the men there a chance to have someone to assert their manhood/power over. When it was only or mostly men, they had no one to assert their power over and so they fought each other in hopes of proving they were better than the other "weaker" men. So, when they were allowed to have families they were able to be in charge of people below them and this is likely why women were observed to soften the violence. They no longer had to fight each other to prove themselves. This plus gaining status through trade, for example tobacco, provided a much more peaceful way for men in colonial Virginia to gain, prove, and maintain their manhood. (Katherine Hamilton)
+J. McCurdy’s account has many parallels with Romero’s study of Puritan and Native American masculinities. For example, the notion that masculinity is something to be performed. J. McCurdy demonstrates that early colonial Jamestown exemplified a clash of several masculinities. Each of these masculinities had a performative element. For example, John Smith’s version of masculinity assumed that masculinity was meant to be performed through hard work, strength, and teamwork, whereas for Gates and Dale obedience was the first performative component on the path to masculinity. At the same time, these notions coexisted with another idea of performative masculinity through plunder, conquest, and mutiny. These ideas of performative masculinities can be partially used to explain the instability of gender roles in early Jamestown. - Nikolai Kotkov
+McCurdy argues that Jamestown's instability did not simply stem from the environmental conflict the settlers faced, but mostly from the conflicting definitions of manhood. Higher-class settlers saw their masculinity rooted in birth and status, while lower-class settlers saw the military as their way to manhood through physical strength and skill. This made it difficult for the men to decide and appoint a leader, which led to mutiny and was a large factor in the failures of the colony. (Callie McAleese)
+The unique conditions presented by Jamestown with both it's geographic location as well as the period of time in which it was founded created an environment that constantly challenged the notions of "Manhood" that figures like George Percy and even John Smith tried to implement through their leadership. Keeping these conditions in mind allows us to better understand the foundations of manhood that survive through the constant stressing of colonial ideals. ( Jonathan Jardines )