Cathy Birkenstein and Gerald Graff, authors of They Say/ I say, propose that there most people who argue fall to 2 extremes: those who summarise too much- that they fail to give their own opinion about in a discussion, and those who summarise too little- giving only their opinion and no fact from the source material itself. Buissert summarizes intellectual opinions and sentiment on the use of the terms “creolization” and “assimilation” to describe the melding of cultures between multiple societies.

Buissert’s argument about Creolisation having been a significant phenomenon follows the directions of Cathy Birkenstein and Gerald Graff that a writer must give his readers enough information about his subject material to enable them to make a sufficiently informed judgement of their own- independent of the writers’ own opinion. Buissert plays “the believing game” very well- almost to a fault. He with great detail, describes and cites many striking examples of creolization taking place in the Americas- in Canada between the French and the indians, in Cuba between the Spanish and the natives, in America between the indians and the british, and in Cuba, and Mexico, between the Spanish and the natives. In each case, Buissert cites the various ways in which this creolization of cultures was observable- in the evolutions of architecture- in diet and in the cultures and languages people used to communicate.

He so clearly presents the original authors’ arguments as their own that in some parts, it is difficult to hear his own voice and opinions through his writing. Paradoxically, this setting your own view aside, is a characteristic of a well written, objective summary, however, Buissert’s own opinion should retain a subtle influence in his writing. It is a fine line, and for the most part, Buissert walks it well. While I find his argument persuasive, especially his concluding saying perhaps creolization extends beyond diet, architecture, and language, but into the flora and fauna, into the ecosystem and environment itself- I fail to clearly hear his authentic voice and opinions about creolization as a phenomenon between different cultures interacting. His argument and summarisation is very objective but lacking in its being so devoid of his own clearly put personal feelings.

Cathy Birkenstein and Gerald Graff, in They Say/ I say the writer needs to align their summarisation of a given piece of a writing, with their own opinions about it. They say the summarised ‘ “they say” needs to be in line with the writer’s “I say.” Buissert does this well to a limited extent in referencing the interactions between different cultures, but falling short in his inability to sufficiently explain his own opinions about the matter.

      The article Creolization in the Americas written by David Buisseret argues that the terms “assimilation” and “acculturation” are not the best terms to be used to describe what we know to be the columbian exchange era. The terms assimilation and acculturation imply that during a cultural exchange, cultural ideas are passed from a superior “donor’ to a “recipient” culture thus alluding that one culture is superior to the other. Buisseret discusses that during a cultural exchange there is no superior “donor”, instead, he says that the term “creolization” represents a blending of cultural ideas and exchange which is a more accurate in the exchange between the Europeans, Native Americans and Africans.

      Buisseret does a nice job utilizing evidence such as how the french adapts to climates because of colonization in Quebec as well as many other examples. I think that Buisseret’s argument is compelling because he does an excellent job utilizing skills that we read about in “They Say, I Say” such as summarizing the preexisting beliefs and ideas while simultaneously disagreeing with them.

In the introduction of “A Land So Strange” author Andres Resendez informs the reader of an incredible journey made by Cabeza de Vaca, Estebanico (an enslaved African American), and two other Spaniards. After Cabeza de Vaca and Estabanico are discovered by European horsemen, their story of survival becomes a famous story in America and Europe. The tale has become less known due to its difficulty to read and because of this, Andres Resendez decides to highlight the importance of this long lost tale in a simpler way while staying true to the facts. I do find this introduction quite persuasive because the author explains how imperative this story is to history. He expresses how Cabeza’s account is a significant due to the early encounters with Native Americans before and during their population decline. The story offers key information on the new world’s culture, land, and societies.  Resendez uses evidence form Cabeza’s narrative, the Joint Report, and the work of fellow chronicler Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo.

The article, “Creolization in the Americas” by David Buisseret highlights the word ‘creolization’ to describe the integration of different cultures and people. I find his text very persuasive because he continuously disagrees with the terms ‘assimilation’ and ‘acculturation’ which portrays one culture integrated into another dominant culture. Buisseret uses over 33 sources to support his argument. One example of his sources would be from author, Franics Jennings who offers a model including ix phases of an encounter of two cultures. Jennings evidence shifts attention away from the initial contacts between two groups and emphasizes that the creolization continues over a long term to affect both groups.

The passage “only connect” William Cronon argues that people’s perception of liberal education is skewed and he tells the reader what he believes a liberal arts education to be. He credits the action of telling students what classes they need become liberate. Cronon doesn’t think telling people the classes they should take and the order they should take them is how to get people to be more liberate. There are some parts of his argument that i find intriguing when he talks about the roots of the word “liberal” in different ancient languages, he talks about the  greek, latin and old english. Being a liberal arts student you would think i did more research on what the word liberal means, unfortunately that isn’t true. I never looked deeper into what it meant to go to a “liberal arts” school i figured a degree was a degree no matter where you got it from, but going to a Liberal arts school the education goes so much deeper than just a degree. But, unless the author can give a better idea than a “list” i disagree with him.

In the intro to “A Land so Strange”, Résendez attempts to argue the importance of the journey of Cabeza de Vaca on the exploration and colonization of the new world. In this introduction, Résendez summarizes the long journey of Cabeza de Vaca and his companions and discusses the larger impact of their journey in terms of Spanish understanding of the Native Americans. The main point of the introduction of “A Land so Strange” was to tell the reader that Cabeza de Vaca’s journey was one of a kind. Never before had a white man, let alone a Spaniard explored the new world so intimately in a way that did not disrupt and destroy native culture. Cabeza de Vaca came to understand the Native Americans as people and attempted to convince the colonizing Spaniards to treat them as such. Fortunately, Résendez uses very strong language, bold imagery, and interesting anecdotes to ensure that his argument is not only interesting, but also persuasive. I felt that Résendez’s argument was very persuasive because he provided multiple viewpoints and referenced multiple first hand accounts and resources to provide evidence for his point. Résendez also strengthened his summary by supplementing it with interesting specifics that kept the reader engaged. I enjoyed the intro and am excited to read more about the fascinating journey of Cabeza de Vaca!

In his article “Creolization in America”, Buisseret analyzes the history of the term “The New World” and when the New World really came into being. Buisseret begins his article by discussing the term acculturation and then follows the transition from sociological acceptance the theory of acculturation to the theory of creolization. After analyzing the ideas of multiple sociologists he moves on to analyze different kinds of evidence of creolization and finally discusses the stages of creolization in an attempt to pinpoint the origin of the New World. Buisseret’s main argument is that the formation of the New World was not instantaneous, it took time and formed through the blending of multiple unique cultures which he referred to as creolization.  While I found the article informative, I think there was a lot of merit to Buisseret’s argument, and definitely agree with what he said, I couldn’t help but feel that he got caught up in too much summary and did not offer enough of his own opinion. I also felt that the specific examples were very helpful but there were just too many examples when he was discussing examples of creolization. I think that if there was a little less summary, the article would have been more clear and convincing.

In They Say, I Say by Gerald Graff, he sets out templates for convincing and good writing. One of his tips was to unbiasedly summarize the points of the author you’re referencing but highlight parts of their argument that are related to yours, in order to make your own argument stronger and clearer. The Buissert reading did this expertly, listing previous theories, and implying they were wrong or could be improved, and then builds his own argument. Creolization is the exchange of culture between Native Americans, Africans, and Europeans. Other scholars argued that it was a dominant (European) culture that was taking over a submissive (Native American) culture. He then goes into specific examples and counters previously established ideas proposed by the academics he had begun the passage with. I think his arguments were persuasive because he followed the format Graff lays out really well, and I think it’s a format that works. The Résendez reading was less formal, as it was the introduction to an account of a man’s journey rather than a scholarly article. I think what he says about Cabeza de Vaca really illustrates Buissert’s point because the Spanish party that comes across de Vaca and his remaining companions mistakes them for Natives at first, and they had taken some of the native culture, and the natives had learned from them a bit too.

In the introduction of A Land So Strange, Résendez gives a brief description of Cabeza de Vaca’s journey and its consequences in historical and modern times respectively. Cabeza de Vaca, two other Spaniards, and Estebanico were the among first outsiders to experience and come into contact with the New World. They were able to view America before European diseases, colonization, and slavery changed it permanently. Though at one point Cabeza de Vaca’s story was well known by the general public, in modern times it has gone largely underappreciated. Résendez draws evidence from a few different sources, including the Joint Report, the Narrative, and the research of other scholars. I would argue that Résendez is persuasive, although it depends on what you believe he is arguing. I believe that he is attempting to introduce the reader to Cabeza de Vaca’s story, but he is also asserting that Cabeza de Vaca’s story is one that the general public should be more familiar with, despite the fact that its age makes it a bit difficult to understand.

In the introduction of Creolization in the Americas, Buisseret reports on the significance and effect of creolization during the colonization of the Americas. Other terms, such as “acculturation” and “assimilation,” fail to accurately describe what was actually happening at the time, Buisseret claims. This is because these terms describe a “one-way” process, in which a donor culture gives (however forcefully) its own traits and practices to a recipient culture. In the case of the cultural interactions between the Europeans, Africans, and Native Americans, the transfer of cultural traits was anything but unilateral, which is why Buisseret chooses to use the term “creolization” to refer to said process. Throughout the introduction of Creolization in the Americas, Buisseret briefly describes the many ways that creolization affected each group’s culture. Evidence of this mixing of cultures can be seen in the food, music, clothing, medicine, and religion of each of these cultures. Personally, I found Buisseret to be persuasive, mainly because he draws evidence from multiple different sources.

In the introduction of A Land So Strange, the author reflects on the ideas of Cabeza de Vaca that it was possible for European colonists to peacefully colonize the new world, yet most lacked such insight of America that Cabeza de Vaca gained through cultural integration across the continent.  In David Buisseret’s Creolization in the Americas, he describes and gives examples of the melding of cultures in the new world. However, he specifically points out how, although African and Native American culture did influence many modern cultures, English North America evaded most of this acculturation. Buisseret explains how wealthy colonists employed European ideals into their way of life, using medieval farming techniques and eating European foods. Whereas the poor were forced to learn Native methods of farming, and mimic their style of architecture.

While Cabeza de Vaca was correct in saying a humane occupation of the Americas was possible, he did not go about explaining how to persuade colonists to integrate their culture into the culture of the Natives.

In Creolization of the Americas, the author gives examples of the mixing of cultures in French-speaking Canada, regions in the US, and in South America, but he does not state how these examples have impacted the world we live in, nor the impact left on Europe from the colonization of the new world.

In the introduction in A Land So Strange by Andrés Reséndez he describes how Cabeza de Vaca and his companions transformed how Spain viewed the Indians and how they themselves changed. Before Vaca came back on his adventure the Spaniards did not know if the Native Americans had souls and treated them as lesser humans. Through Vaca and his companions’ description of their adventure the Spanish realized that the Indians really were humans and started to treat them as such. Reséndez also describes how the tale of Cabeza de Vaca was very well known in the 1500s, and still has devoted fans, but it has lost world wide popularity since. Reséndez plans on presenting A Land So Strange as a factual journey and will not embellish.

Creolization in the Americas by David Buisseret states that “creolization” is process of two or more cultures merging and sharing ideas to form nearly a new culture. Buisseret belives creolization is a two-way street both the Indians and the Spanish, Portuguese, French and Africans gained something from other. Buisseret shows the easiest for creolization to be shown is in architecture, food, clothing, language, medicine, and music. Buisseret also expresses that how much two cultures creolize it based on; if they need to, if they want to, if the land is similar, and if there is more people of one culture then the other. I find Buisseret’s points very persuasive. To me it is very clear in our food how our culture creolizes. We have pizza, tortillas, seafood, noodles and so much more. Creolization is the right term to use because assimilate sounds one culture is absorbing the other and the “main” culture is unaffected.

They Say I Say chapter two and the introduction of A Land So Strange  is about telling a story the way it happened and not exaggerating it to make it seem more grandiose than it actually is. This can be seen in a land so strange when the author Andres Resendez says, “It is tempting to narrate their journey as an extreme tale of survival: four naked men at the mercy of the natural elements, facing an extraordinary array of native societies (Resendez Pg 3).” This shows that Resendez wants to accurately depict De Vaca and his companions travels.

The reading Creolization in the America clarifies how cultures “assimilate” with one another when two previously unfamiliar cultures come into contact with one another. He says the word Creolization is a better term then assimilation. He backs this saying that to have a donor culture and receiving culture makes no sense because all cultures borrow from each other albeit at different rates and different aspects of each culture it is irrelevant when looked at in the long run. I find this argument to be persuasive because of the evidence it has to back it. Also I feel it makes more sense logically that a culture can not donate aspects of itself they are merely taken by other cultures that feel it would be appropriate to take.