(eBook PDF) Gender Through the Prism

of Difference 6th Edition

Go to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-gender-through-the-prism-of-difference-6t
h-edition/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

(eBook PDF) Gender Through the Prism of Difference 6th

Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-gender-through-the-
prism-of-difference-6th-edition-2/

(eBook PDF) Gender Through the Prism of Difference 6th

Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-gender-through-the-
prism-of-difference-6th-edition-3/

(eBook PDF) The Social Construction of Difference and

Inequality: Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality 7th
Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-the-social-construction-
of-difference-and-inequality-race-class-gender-and-sexuality-7th-
edition/

Nutrition Through the Life Cycle 6th Edition (eBook

PDF)

http://ebooksecure.com/product/nutrition-through-the-life-
cycle-6th-edition-ebook-pdf/
(eBook PDF) Nutrition Through the Life Cycle 6th
Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-nutrition-through-the-
life-cycle-6th-edition/

The Psychology of Women and Gender 8e Edition Margaret

W. Matlin - eBook PDF

https://ebooksecure.com/download/the-psychology-of-women-and-
gender-ebook-pdf/

(eBook PDF) Logistics Management and Strategy:

Competing through the Supply Chain, 6th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-logistics-management-
and-strategy-competing-through-the-supply-chain-6th-edition/

(Original PDF) Teaching Children to Read The Teacher

Makes the Difference (8th Edition)

http://ebooksecure.com/product/original-pdf-teaching-children-to-
read-the-teacher-makes-the-difference-8th-edition/

(eBook PDF) Deviance Across Cultures: Constructions of

Difference 2nd Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-deviance-across-
cultures-constructions-of-difference-2nd-edition/
 CONTENTS

p r e fac e xiii
ac k n ow l e d g m e n ts xv
introduction: Sex and Gender through the Prism of Difference 1
*Denotes a reading new to this edition.
PA R T I PERSPECTIVES ON SEX, GENDER, AND DIFFERENCE 13

1. Anne Fausto-Sterling, The Five Sexes,

Revisited 1 7
2. Maxine Baca Zinn and Bonnie Thornton
Dill, Theorizing Difference from Multiracial
Feminism 2 2
*3. Stephanie A. Shields, Gender: An Intersectionality
Perspective 29
4. Raewyn W. Connell, Masculinities and
Globalization 3 7
*5. Bandana Purkayastha, Intersectionality in a
Transnational World 50

PA R T I I BODIES 57

6. Laurel Westbrook and Kristen Schilt, Doing Gender,

Determining Gender: Transgender People, Gender
Panics, and the Maintenance of the Sex/Gender/
Sexuality System 61
*7. Georgiann Davis, Medical Jurisdiction
and the Intersex Body 77
vii
viii contents

8. Betsy Lucal, What It Means to Be Gendered Me: Life

on the Boundaries of a Dichotomous Gender
System 9 2
9. Evelyn Nakano Glenn, Yearning for Lightness:
Transnational Circuits in the Marketing and
Consumption of Skin Lighteners 102
*10 . Heidi Safia Mirza, “A Second Skin”: Embodied
Intersectionality, Transnationalism, and
Narratives of Identity and Belonging among
Muslim Women in Britain 117

PA R T I I I . SEXUALITIES AND DESIRES 131

11. Rashawn Ray and Jason A. Rosow, Getting Off and

Getting Intimate: How Normative Institutional
Arrangements Structure Black and White Fraternity
Men’s Approaches toward Women 133
*12. Karen Pyke, An Intersectional Approach to Resistance
and Complicity: The Case of Racialised Desire
among Asian American Women 150
13. Jane Ward, Dude-Sex: White Masculinities and
“Authentic” Heterosexuality among Dudes Who
Have Sex with Dudes 160
*14. Hector Carrillo and Jorge Fontdevila, Border
Crossings and Shifting Sexualities among
Mexican Gay Immigrant Men: Beyond Monolithic
Conceptions 1 7 2
15. Kirsty Liddiard, The Work of Disabled Identities in
Intimate Relationships 184

PA R T I V. IDENTITIES 193

16. B. Deutsch, The Male Privilege Checklist: An

Unabashed Imitation of an Article by Peggy
McIntosh 1 9 5
17. Audre Lorde, Age, Race, Class, and Sex: Women
Redefining Difference 198
18. Tristan Bridges and C. J. Pascoe, Hybrid Masculinities:
New Directions in the Sociology of Men and
Masculinities 20 4
 Contents ix

19. Sanyu A. Mojola, Providing Women, Kept Men: Doing

Masculinity in the Wake of the African HIV/AIDS
Pandemic 21 7
*20. Joelle Ruby Ryan, From Transgender to Trans*: The
Ongoing Struggle for Inclusion, Acceptance, and
Celebration of Identities beyond the Binary 231
*21. Aída Hurtado and Minal Sinha, More Than Men: Latino
Feminist Masculinities and Intersectionality 241

PA R T V. FA M I L I E S 253

22 Patricia Hill Collins, The Meaning of Motherhood

in Black Culture and Black Mother–Daughter
Relationships 2 5 7
23. Lisa J. Udel, Revision and Resistance: The Politics of
Native Women’s Motherwork 268
*24. Roberta Espinoza, The Good Daughter Dilemma:
Latinas Managing Family and School Demands 282
25. Stephanie Coontz, Why Gender Equality Stalled 292
26. Michael A. Messner and Suzel Bozada-Deas, Separating
the Men from the Moms: The Making of Adult
Gender Segregation in Youth Sports 296
27. Kathryn Edin, What Do Low-Income Single Mothers
Say about Marriage? 310
*28. Nicole Civettini, Housework as Non-Normative Gender
Display among Lesbians and Gay Men 328
*29. Emir Estrada and Pierrette Hondagneu-Sotelo,
Intersectional Dignities: Latino Immigrant Street
Vendor Youth in Los Angeles 344

PA R T V I . C O N S T R U C T I N G G E N D E R I N T H E W O R K P L A C E A N D
T H E L A B O R M A R K E T 361

30. Christine L. Williams, The Glass Escalator, Revisited:

Gender Inequality in Neoliberal Times, SWS
Feminist Lecturer 365
31. Amy M. Denissen and Abigail C. Saguy, Gendered
Homophobia and the Contradictions of Workplace
Discrimination for Women in the Building
Trades 3 7 8
x contents

32. Adia Harvey Wingfield, The Modern Mammy and the

Angry Black Man: African American Professionals’
Experiences with Gendered Racism in the
Workplace 3 90
33. Miliann Kang, “I Just Put Koreans and
Nails Together”: Nail Spas and the Model
Minority 4 01
*34. Rebecca Glauber, Race and Gender in Families and at
Work: The Fatherhood Wage Premium 415
*35. Stephanie J. Nawyn and Linda Gjokaj, The Magnifying
Effect of Privilege: Earnings Inequalities at the
Intersection of Gender, Race, and Nativity 428

PA R T V I I . E D U C AT I O N A N D S C H O O L S 443

36. Ann Arnett Ferguson, Naughty by Nature 445

*37. Elizabeth A. Armstrong, Laura T. Hamilton, and
Elizabeth M. Armstrong, and J. Lotus Seeley, Good
Girls: Gender, Social Class, and Slut Discourse on
Campus 4 5 3
*38. Dolores Delgado Bernal, Learning and Living
Pedagogies of the Home: The Mestiza
Consciousness of Chicana Students 469

PA R T V I I I . VIOLENCE 483

39. Cecilia Menjívar, A Framework for Examining

Violence 4 8 5
40. Victor M. Rios, The Consequences of the
Criminal Justice Pipeline on Black and Latino
Masculinity 501
*41. Natalie J. Sokoloff and Susan C. Pearce, Intersections,
Immigration, and Partner Violence: A View from a
New Gateway—Baltimore, Maryland 509
*42. Roe Bubar and Pamela Jumper Thurman, Violence
against Native Women 518

PA R T I X . CHANGE AND POLITICS 531

43. Kevin Powell, Confessions of a Recovering

Misogynist 53 3
 Contents xi

44. Dorothy Roberts and Sujatha Jesudason, Movement

Intersectionality: The Case of Race, Gender,
Disability, and Genetic Technologies 538
*45. Maylei Blackwell, Líderes Campesinas: Nepantla
Strategies and Grassroots Organizing at the
Intersection of Gender and Globalization 551
*46. Sarah Jaffe, The Collective Power of #MeToo 573

glossary 579
references 585
 PREFACE

O ver the past forty years, texts and readers intended for use in women’s studies and
gender studies courses have changed and developed in important ways. In the 1970s
and into the early 1980s, many courses and texts focused almost exclusively on women as a
relatively undifferentiated category. Two developments have broadened the study of women.
First, in response to criticisms by women of color and by lesbians that heterosexual, white,
middle-class feminists had tended to “falsely universalize” their own experiences and issues,
courses and texts on gender began in the 1980s to systematically incorporate race and class
diversity. And simultaneously, as a result of feminist scholars’ insistence that gender be stud-
ied as a relational construct, more concrete studies of men and masculinity began to emerge
in the 1980s.
This book reflects this belief that race, class, and sexual diversity among women and
men should be central to the study of gender. But this collection adds an important new
dimension that will broaden the frame of gender studies. By including some articles that
are based on research in nations connected to the United States through globalization,
tourism, and labor migrations, we hope that Gender through the Prism of Difference will
contribute to a transcendence of the often myopic, US-based, and Eurocentric focus on
the study of sex and gender. The inclusion of these perspectives is not simply useful for
illuminating our own cultural blind spots; it also begins to demonstrate how, early in the
twenty-first century, gender relations are increasingly centrally implicated in current pro-
cesses of globalization.

NEW TO THIS EDITION

Because the amount of high-quality research on gender has expanded so dramatically in

the past decade, the most difficult task in assembling this collection was deciding what to
include. The sixth edition, while retaining the structure of the previous edition, is different
and improved. This edition includes nineteen new articles and discusses material on gender

xiii
xiv preface

issues relevant to the college-age generation, including several articles on college students as
well as the contemporary #MeToo social movement. We have also included articles on trans-
gender identities and public policies, additional chapters on Native and Muslim women,
policing and incarceration, the intersection of gender and immigration, and gender and dis-
abilities. Our focus for selecting chapters is to include readings that cover important topics
that are most accessible for students, while keeping the cost of the volume down.
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

W e thank faculty and staff colleagues in the Department of Sociology and the Gender
Studies program at the University of Southern California, and the Department of So-
ciology and the Center for Gender in Global Context at Michigan State University for their
generous support and assistance. Other people contributed their labor to the d
­ evelopment of
this book. We are grateful to Amy Holzgang, Cerritos College; Lauren ­McDonald, California
State University Northridge; and Linda Shaw, California State University San Marcos, for their
invaluable feedback and advice. We thank Heidi R. Lewis of Colorado College for her contri-
butions to the book’s ancillary program, available at www.oup-arc.com/bacazinn.
We acknowledge the helpful criticism and suggestions made by the following reviewers:
Erin K. Anderson, Washington College
Kathleen Cole, Metropolitan State University
Ted Coleman, California State University, San Bernardino
Keri Diggins, Scottsdale Community College
Emily Gaarder, University of Minnesota, Duluth
Robert B. Jenkot, Coastal Carolina University
Amanda Miller, University of Indianapolis
Carla Norris-Raynbird, Bemidji State University
Katie R. Peel, University of North Carolina Wilmington
Jaita Talukdar, Loyola University New Orleans
Billy James Ulibarrí, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley
Kate Webster, DePaul University
We also thank our editor at Oxford University Press, Sherith Pankratz, who has been
encouraging, helpful, and patient, and Grace Li for her assistance throughout the process.
We also thank Tony Mathias and Jennifer Sperber for their marketing assistance with the
book. We also thank Dr. Amy Denissen, whose contributions to the fifth edition of this
book laid invaluable groundwork for the current edition.

xv
xvi acknowledgments

Finally, we thank our families for their love and support as we worked on this book. Alan
Zinn, Prentice Zinn, Gabrielle Cobbs, and Edan Zinn provide inspiration through their work
for progressive social change. Miles Hondagneu-Messner and Sasha H ­ ondagneu-Messner
continually challenge the neatness of Mike and Pierrette’s image of social life. Richard
Hellinga was always ready to pick up slack on the home front, Henry Nawyn-Hellinga pro-
vided encouraging words at the least expected moments, and Zach Nawyn-Hellinga helped
Stephanie experience firsthand life on the borders of gender. We do hope that the kind of
work that is collected in this book will eventually help them and their generation make
sense of the world and move that world into more peaceful, humane, and just directions.
GENDER THROUGH THE PRISM OF DIFFERENCE
 INTRODUCTION

sex and gender through the prism of difference

“Men can’t cry.” “Women are victims of patriarchal oppression.” “After divorces, single moth-
ers are downwardly mobile, often moving into poverty.” “Men don’t do their share of house-
work and child care.” “Professional women face barriers such as sexual harassment and a
‘glass ceiling’ that prevent them from competing equally with men for high-status positions
and high salaries.” “Heterosexual intercourse is an expression of men’s power over women.”
Sometimes, the students in our sociology and gender studies courses balk at these kinds of
generalizations. And they are right to do so. After all, some men are more emotionally expres-
sive than some women, some women have more power and success than some men, some
men do their share—or more—of housework and child care, and some women experience sex
with men as both pleasurable and empowering. Indeed, contemporary gender relations are
complex and changing in various directions, and as such, we need to be wary of simplistic, if
handy, slogans that seem to sum up the essence of relations between women and men.
On the other hand, we think it is a tremendous mistake to conclude that “all individuals
are totally unique and different,” and that therefore all generalizations about social groups are
impossible or inherently oppressive. In fact, we are convinced that it is this very complexity,
this multifaceted nature of contemporary gender relations, that fairly begs for a sociological
analysis of gender. In the title of this book, we use the image of “the prism of difference” to
illustrate our approach to developing this sociological perspective on contemporary gender
relations. The American Heritage Dictionary defines “prism,” in part, as “a homogeneous trans-
parent solid, usually with triangular bases and rectangular sides, used to produce or analyze a
continuous spectrum.” Imagine a ray of light—which to the naked eye appears to be only one
color—refracted through a prism onto a white wall. To the eye, the result is not an infinite,
disorganized scatter of individual colors. Rather, the refracted light displays an order, a struc-
ture of relationships among the different colors—a rainbow. Similarly, we propose to use the
prism of difference in this book to analyze a continuous spectrum of people to show how
gender is organized and experienced differently when refracted through the prism of sexual,
racial-ethnic, social class, ability, age, and national citizenship differences.
1
2 gender through the prism of difference

e a r ly w o m e n ’ s s t u d i e s : c at e g o r i c a l v i e w s o f “women” and “men”

Taken together, the articles in this book make the case that it is possible to make good
generalizations about women and men. But these generalizations should be drawn care-
fully, by always asking the questions “which women?” and “which men?” Scholars of sex
and gender have not always done this. In the 1960s and 1970s, women’s studies focused
on the differences between women and men rather than among women and men. The very
concept of gender, women’s studies scholars demonstrated, is based on socially defined
difference between women and men. From the macro level of social institutions such
as the economy, politics, and religion to the micro level of interpersonal relations, dis-
tinctions between women and men structure social relations. Making men and women
­different from one another is the essence of gender. It is also the basis of men’s power and
domination. Understanding this was profoundly illuminating. Knowing that difference
produced domination enabled women to name, analyze, and set about changing their
victimization.
In the 1970s, riding the wave of a resurgent feminist movement, colleges and universities
began to develop women’s studies courses that aimed first and foremost to make women’s
lives visible. The texts that were developed for these courses tended to stress the things that
women shared under patriarchy—having the responsibility for housework and child care,
the experience or fear of men’s sexual violence, a lack of formal or informal access to educa-
tion, and exclusion from high-status professional and managerial jobs, political office, and
religious leadership positions (Brownmiller 1975; Kanter 1977).
The study of women in society offered new ways of seeing the world. But the 1970s ap-
proach was limited in several ways. Thinking of gender primarily in terms of differences be-
tween women and men led scholars to overgeneralize about both. The concept of patriarchy
led to a dualistic perspective of male privilege and female subordination. Women and men
were cast as opposites. Each was treated as a homogeneous category with common charac-
teristics and experiences. This approach essentialized women and men. Essentialism, simply
put, is the notion that women’s and men’s attributes and indeed women and men them-
selves are categorically different. From this perspective, male control and coercion of women
produced conflict between the sexes. The feminist insight originally introduced by Simone
de Beauvoir in 1953—that women, as a group, had been socially defined as the “other” and
that men had constructed themselves as the subjects of history, while constructing women
as their objects—fueled an energizing sense of togetherness among many women. As col-
lege students read books such as Sisterhood Is Powerful (Morgan 1970), many of them joined
organizations that fought—with some success—for equality and justice for women.

the voices of “other” women

Although this view of women as an oppressed “other” was empowering for certain groups of
women, some women began to claim that the feminist view of universal sisterhood ignored
and marginalized their major concerns. It soon became apparent that treating women as
a group united in its victimization by patriarchy was biased by too narrow a focus on the
experiences and perspectives of women from more privileged social groups. “Gender” was
 Introduction 3

treated as a generic category, uncritically applied to women. Ironically, this analysis, which
was meant to unify women, instead produced divisions between and among them. The
concerns projected as “universal” were removed from the realities of many women’s lives.
For example, it became a matter of faith in second-wave feminism that women’s liberation
would be accomplished by breaking down the “gendered public-domestic split.” Indeed,
the feminist call for women to move out of the kitchen and into the workplace resonated
in the experiences of many of the college-educated white women who were inspired by
Betty Friedan’s 1963 book, The Feminine Mystique. But the idea that women’s movement
into workplaces was itself empowering or liberating seemed absurd or irrelevant to many
working-class women and women of color. They were already working for wages, as had
many of their mothers and grandmothers, and did not consider access to jobs and public
life “liberating.” For many of these women, liberation had more to do with organizing in
communities and workplaces—often alongside men—for better schools, better pay, decent
benefits, and other policies to benefit their neighborhoods, jobs, and families. The feminism
of the 1970s did not seem to address these issues.
As more and more women analyzed their own experiences, they began to address the
power relations that created differences among women and the part that privileged women
played in the oppression of others. For many women of color, working-class women, lesbi-
ans, and women in contexts outside the United States (especially women in non-Western
societies), the focus on male domination was a distraction from other oppressions. Their
lived experiences could support neither a unitary theory of gender nor an ideology of univer-
sal sisterhood. As a result, finding common ground in a universal female victimization was
never a priority for many groups of women.
Challenges to gender stereotypes soon emerged. Women of varied races, classes, national
origins, and sexualities insisted that the concept of gender be broadened to take their differ-
ences into account (Baca Zinn et al. 1986; Hartmann 1976; Rich 1980; Smith 1977). Many
women began to argue that their lives were affected by their location in a number of dif-
ferent hierarchies: in the United States as African Americans, Latinas, Native Americans, or
Asian Americans in the race hierarchy; as young or old in the age hierarchy; as heterosexual,
lesbian, bisexual, or queer in the sexual orientation hierarchy; and as women outside the
Western industrialized nations, in subordinated geopolitical contexts. Books like Cherríe
Moraga’s and Gloria Anzaldúa’s This Bridge Called My Back (1981) described the experiences
of women living at the intersections of multiple oppressions, challenging the notion of a
monolithic “woman’s experience.” Stories from women at these intersections made it clear
that women were not victimized by gender alone but by the historical and systematic denial
of rights and privileges based on other differences as well.

men as gendered beings

As the voices of “other” women in the mid- to late 1970s began to challenge and expand
the parameters of women’s studies, a new area of scholarly inquiry was beginning to stir—a
critical examination of men and masculinity. To be sure, in those early years of gender stud-
ies, the major task was to conduct studies and develop courses about the lives of women to
4 gender through the prism of difference

begin to correct centuries of scholarship that rendered invisible women’s lives, problems,
and accomplishments. But the core idea of feminism—that “femininity” and women’s sub-
ordination is a social construction—logically led to an examination of the social construc-
tion of “masculinity” and men’s power. Many of the first scholars to take on this task were
psychologists who were concerned with looking at the social construction of “the male sex
role” (e.g., Pleck 1976). By the late 1980s, there was a growing interdisciplinary collection of
studies of men and masculinity, much of it by social scientists (Brod 1987; Kaufman 1987;
Kimmel 1987; Kimmel and Messner 1989).
Reflecting developments in women’s studies, the scholarship on men’s lives tended to
develop three themes: First, what we think of as “masculinity” is not a fixed, biological es-
sence of men, but rather is a social construction that shifts and changes over time as well
as between and among various national and cultural contexts. Second, power is central to
understanding gender as a relational construct, and the dominant definition of masculin-
ity is largely about expressing difference from—and superiority over—anything considered
“feminine.” And third, there is no singular “male sex role.” Rather, at any given time there are
various masculinities. R. W. Connell (1987, 1995, 2002) has been among the most articulate
advocates of this perspective. Connell argues that hegemonic masculinity (the dominant
and most privileged form of masculinity at any given moment) is constructed in relation to
femininities as well as in relation to various subordinated or marginalized masculinities. For
example, in the United States, various racialized masculinities (e.g., as represented by African
American men, Latino immigrant men, etc.) have been central to the construction of hege-
monic (white middle-class) masculinity. This “othering” of racialized masculinities, as well
as their selective incorporation by dominant groups (Bridges and Pascoe in this volume),
helps to shore up the privileges that have been historically connected to hegemonic mascu-
linity. When viewed this way, we can better understand hegemonic masculinity as part of a
system that includes gender as well as racial, class, sexual, and other relations of power.
The new literature on men and masculinities also begins to move us beyond the simplis-
tic, falsely categorical, and pessimistic view of men simply as a privileged sex class. When
race, social class, sexual orientation, physical abilities, immigrant, or national status are taken
into account, we can see that in some circumstances, “male privilege” is partly—sometimes
substantially—muted (Kimmel and Messner 2010; Kimmel in this volume). Although it is
unlikely that we will soon see a “men’s movement” that aims to undermine the power and
privileges that are connected with hegemonic masculinity, when we begin to look at “mas-
culinities” through the prism of difference, we can begin to see similarities and possible
points of coalition between and among certain groups of women and men (Messner 1998).
Certain kinds of changes in gender relations—for instance, a national family leave policy for
working parents—might serve as a means of uniting particular groups of women and men.

gender in global contexts

It is an increasingly accepted truism that late twentieth-century increases in transnational

trade, international migration, and global systems of production and communication have
diminished both the power of nation-states and the significance of national borders. A much
 Introduction 5

more ignored issue is the extent to which gender relations—in the United States and else-
where in the world—are increasingly linked to patterns of global economic restructuring.
Decisions made in corporate headquarters located in Los Angeles, Tokyo, or London may
have immediate repercussions on how people thousands of miles away organize their work,
community, and family lives (Sassen 1991). It is no longer possible to study gender relations
without giving attention to global processes and inequalities. Scholarship on women in de-
veloping countries has moved from liberal concerns for the impact of development policies
on women (Boserup 1970) to more critical perspectives that acknowledge how international
labor and capital mobility are transforming gender and family relations (Hondagneu-Sotelo
and Avila 1997; Mojola 2014). The transformation of international relations from a 1990s
“post–Cold War” environment to an expansion of militarism and warfare in recent years
has realigned international gender relations in key ways that call for new examinations of
gender, violence, militarism, and culture (Enloe 1993, 2000; Okin 1999). The now extended
US military presence in the Middle East has brought with it increasing numbers of female
troops and, with that, growing awareness of gender and sexual violence both by and within
the military.
Around the world, women’s paid and unpaid labor is key to global development strate-
gies. Yet it would be a mistake to conclude that gender is molded from the “top down.”
What happens on a daily basis in families and workplaces simultaneously constitutes and
is constrained by structural transnational institutions. For instance, in the second half of
the twentieth century young, single women, many of them from poor rural areas, were
(and continue to be) recruited for work in export assembly plants along the US–Mexico
border, in East and Southeast Asia, in Silicon Valley, in the Caribbean, and in Central
America. Although the profitability of these multinational factories depends, in part, on
management’s ability to manipulate the young women’s ideologies of gender, the women
do not respond passively or uniformly, but actively resist, challenge, and accommodate. At
the same time, the global dispersion of the assembly line has concentrated corporate facili-
ties in many US cities, making available myriad managerial, administrative, and clerical
jobs for college-educated women. Women’s paid labor is used at various points along this
international system of production. Not only employment but also consumption embod-
ies global interdependencies. There is a high probability that the clothing you are wear-
ing and the computer you use originated in multinational corporate headquarters and in
assembly plants scattered around third world nations. And if these items were actually
manufactured in the United States, they were probably assembled by Latin American and
Asian-born women.
Worldwide, international labor migration and refugee movements are creating new types
of multiracial societies. Although these developments are often discussed and analyzed with
respect to racial differences, gender typically remains absent. As several commentators have
noted, the white feminist movement in the United States has not addressed issues of im-
migration and nationality. Gender, however, has been fundamental in shaping immigration
policies (Chang 1994; Hondagneu-Sotelo 1994). Direct labor recruitment programs gener-
ally solicit either male or female labor (e.g., Filipina nurses and Mexican male farm workers),
national disenfranchisement has particular repercussions for women and men, and current
6 gender through the prism of difference

immigrant laws are based on very gendered notions of what constitutes “family unifica-
tion.” As Chandra Mohanty suggests, “analytically these issues are the contemporary met-
ropolitan counterpart of women’s struggles against colonial occupation in the geographical
third world” (1991:23). Moreover, immigrant and refugee women’s daily lives often chal-
lenge familiar feminist paradigms. The occupations in which immigrant and refugee women
concentrate—paid domestic work, informal sector street vending, assembly or industrial
piecework performed in the home—often blur the ideological distinction between work and
family and between public and private spheres (Hondagneu-Sotelo2001; Parreñas2001). As
a number of articles in this volume show, immigrant women creatively respond to changes
in work and family brought about through migration, innovating changes in what were once
thought to be stable, fixed sexuality practices and mores.

f r o m pat c h w o r k q u i lt t o p r i s m

All of these developments—the voices of “other” women, the study of men and mascu-
linities, and the examination of gender in transnational contexts—have helped redefine the
study of gender. By working to develop knowledge that is inclusive of the experiences of all
groups, new insights about gender have begun to emerge. Examining gender in the context
of other differences makes it clear that nobody experiences themselves as solely gendered.
Instead, gender is configured through cross-cutting forms of difference that carry deep social
and economic consequences.
By the mid-1980s, thinking about gender had entered a new stage, which was more
carefully grounded in the experiences of diverse groups of women and men. This perspec-
tive is a general way of looking at women and men and understanding their relationships
to the structure of society. Gender is no longer viewed simply as a matter of two opposite
categories of people, males and females, but as a range of social relations among differently
situated people. Because centering on difference is a radical challenge to the conventional
gender framework, it raises several concerns. If we think of all the systems that converge to
simultaneously influence the lives of women and men, we can imagine an infinite number
of effects these interconnected systems have on different women and men. Does the recog-
nition that gender can be understood only contextually (meaning that there is no singular
“gender” per se) make women’s studies and men’s studies newly vulnerable to critics in the
academy? Does the immersion in difference throw us into a whirlwind of “spiraling diver-
sity” (Hewitt 1992:316) whereby multiple identities and locations shatter the categories
“women” and “men”?
Throughout the book, we take a position directly opposed to an empty pluralism.
­Although the categories “woman” and “man” have multiple meanings, this does not reduce
gender to a “postmodern kaleidoscope of lifestyles. Rather, it points to the relational char-
acter of gender” (Connell 1992:736). Not only are masculinity and femininity relational,
but different masculinities and femininities are interconnected through other social structures
such as race, class, and nation. The concept of relationality suggests that “the lives of dif-
ferent groups are interconnected even without face-to-face relations (Glenn 2002:14). The
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 On this basis matters stood in 1842, when the The position in
Ashburton Treaty was signed. There was joint 1842.
occupation of the Oregon territory by British and American subjects,
and freedom of trade for both. Lord Ashburton had been empowered
to negotiate for a settlement of the North-Western as well as the
North-Eastern frontier line; but the latter, which involved the question
of the Maine—New Brunswick boundary, being the more pressing
matter, it was thought well to allow the determination of the line West
of the Rocky Mountains to stand over for the moment. As soon as
Lord Ashburton’s Treaty had been signed at Washington in August,
1842, Lord Aberdeen, then Foreign Secretary in Sir Robert Peel’s
Ministry, made overtures to the United States with a view to an early
settlement of the Oregon question. A long diplomatic controversy
ensued, complicated by changes of government in the United States,
and tending, as is constantly the case in such negotiations, to
greater instead of less divergence of view.
The Americans contended that they had a title to the The rival claims.
whole territory up to the Russian line, and they
claimed the entire region drained by the Columbia river. As a
compromise, however, they had already, in the negotiations which
ended in the Convention of 1827, suggested that the boundary line
along the 49th parallel should be continued as far as the Pacific, the
navigation of the Columbia river being left open to both nations. This
offer was repeated as the controversy went on, with the exception
that on the one hand free navigation of the Columbia river was
excluded, and on the other the American Secretary of State
proposed
‘to make free to Great Britain any port or ports on Vancouver’s Island,
south of this parallel, which the British Government may desire’.[243]
The counter British proposal was to the effect that the boundary line
should be continued along the 49th parallel until it intersected the
North-Eastern branch of the Columbia river, and that then the line of
the river should be followed to its mouth, giving to Great Britain all
the country on the north of the river and to the United States all on
the south, the navigation of the river being free to both nations, and a
detached strip of coast land to the north of the river being also
conceded to the United States, with the further understanding that
any port or ports, either on the mainland or on Vancouver Island,
South of the 49th parallel, to which the United States might wish to
have access, should be constituted free ports.
The arguments advanced on both sides, based on alleged priority
of discovery and settlement and on the construction of previous
treaties, are contained in the Blue Book of 1846, and are too
voluminous to be repeated here. The controversy went on from 1842
to 1846; and, when the spring of the latter year was reached, the
Americans had withdrawn their previous offer and had refused a
British proposal to submit the whole matter to arbitration. There was
thus a complete deadlock, but shortly afterwards a debate in
Congress showed a desire on the American side to effect a friendly
settlement of a dispute which had become dangerous, and, the
opportunity being promptly taken by the British Government, a Draft
Treaty was sent out by Lord Aberdeen, which was submitted by
President Polk to the Senate, who by a large majority advised him to
accept it.[244] The Treaty was accordingly signed at Settlement of the
Washington on the 15th of June, 1846. By the First Oregon boundary
question by the
Article the boundary line was Treaty of 1846.

‘continued Westward along the said forty-ninth parallel of North

latitude to the middle of the channel which separates the continent
from Vancouver Island, and thence Southerly, through the middle of
the said channel and of Fuca’s Straits, to the Pacific Ocean’,
the navigation of the channel and straits South of the 49th parallel
being left free and open to both nations. By the Second Article of the
same Treaty, the navigation of the Columbia river, from the point
where the 49th parallel intersects its great Northern branch, was left
open to the Hudson’s Bay Company and to all British subjects
trading with the same. The effect of the Treaty was that Great Britain
abandoned the claim to the line of the Columbia river, and the United
States modified its proposal to adopt the 49th parallel as the
boundary so far as to concede the whole of Vancouver Island to
Great Britain. The news that the treaty had been signed reached
England just as Sir Robert Peel’s ministry was going out of office.
 The delimitation of the boundary which the Treaty The San Juan
had affirmed gave rise to a further difficulty. The Treaty boundary question.
having provided that the sea line was to be drawn southerly through
the middle of the channel which separates Vancouver Island from
the continent and of Fuca’s Straits into the Pacific Ocean, the two
nations were unable to agree as to what was the middle of the
channel in the Gulf of Georgia between the Southern end of
Vancouver Island and the North American coast. The main question
at issue was the ownership of the island of San Juan, and the
subject of dispute was for this reason known as the San Juan
boundary question. The British claim was that the line should be
drawn to the Eastward of the island, down what was known as the
Rosario Straits. The Americans contended that it should be drawn on
the Western side, following the Canal de Haro or Haro Channel.
Eventually it was laid down by the 34th and following Arbitration under
Articles of the Treaty of Washington of 8th of May, the Treaty of 1871.
1871—the same Treaty which provided for arbitration on the
Alabama question—that the Emperor of Germany should arbitrate as
to which of the two claims was most in accordance with the true
interpretation of the Treaty of 1846, and that his award should be
absolutely final and conclusive. On the 21st of October, 1872, the
arbitrator gave his award in favour of the United States, and it was
immediately carried into effect, thus completing the boundary line
from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
In a message to Congress on the subject of the San The Alaska
Juan Boundary Award, President Grant stated boundary question.

‘The Award leaves us, for the first time in the history of the United
States as a nation, without a question of disputed boundary between
our territory and the possessions of Great Britain on this continent;’
and he suggested that a joint Commission should determine the line
between the Alaska territory and the conterminous possessions of
Great Britain, on the hypothesis that here there was no ground of
dispute and that all that was required was the actual delimitation of
an already admitted boundary line. The matter proved to be more
complex than the President’s words implied.
 By a Treaty signed on the 30th of March, 1867, the Russian America
territory now known as Alaska was ceded by Russia to ceded
States.
to the United

the United States. It was the year in which the

Dominion Act was passed; and, when British Columbia[245] in 1871
joined the Dominion, Canada became, in respect of that province, as
well as in regard to the Yukon Territory, a party to the Alaska
boundary question. The limits of Russian America, as it was then
called, had been fixed as far back as 1825, when, by a treaty
between Great Britain and Russia, dated the 28th of Line of demarcation
February in that year, a line of demarcation was fixed between
Russian
British and

between British and Russian possessions possessions in

North America
‘upon the coast of the continent and the islands of America to drawn in 1825.
the North-West’.
The line started from the Southernmost point of Prince of Wales
Island, which point was defined as lying in the parallel of 54° 40′
North latitude and between the 131st and 133rd degrees of West
longitude. It was carried thence to the North, along the channel
called Portland Channel, up to that point of the continent where it
intersected the 56th parallel of North latitude. From this point it
followed the summit of the mountains parallel to the coast until it
intersected the 141st degree of West longitude, and was carried
along that meridian to the Arctic Ocean. The Treaty provided that the
whole of Prince of Wales Island should belong to Russia, and that
wherever the summit of the mountains running parallel to the coast
between the 56th parallel of North latitude and the point where the
boundary line intersected the 141st meridian was proved to be at a
distance of more than 10 marine leagues from the ocean, the line
should be drawn parallel to the windings of the coast at a distance
from it never exceeding 10 marine leagues.
Free navigation of the rivers which flowed into the Free navigation of
Pacific Ocean across the strip of coast assigned to rivers.
Russia was conceded in perpetuity to British subjects; and, after the
transfer of Russian America to the United States, the Twenty-sixth
Article of the Treaty of Washington of 1871 provided that the
navigation of the rivers Yukon, Porcupine, and Stikine should for
ever remain free and open to both British and American citizens,
subject to such laws and regulations of either country within its own
territory as were not inconsistent with the privilege of free navigation.
In 1872, the year after the entry of British Columbia Negotiations for a
into the Dominion of Canada, mining being settlement of the
boundary with the
contemplated in the northern part of British Columbia, United States.
overtures were, at the instance of the Canadian Government, made
to the United States to demarcate the boundary, which had never yet
been surveyed and delimited. The probable cost of a survey caused
delay, and no action had been taken when in 1875 and 1876
disputes arose as to the boundary line on the Stikine river. The
Canadian Government in 1877 dispatched an engineer to ascertain
approximately the line on the river, and the result of his survey was
in the following year provisionally accepted by the United States as a
temporary arrangement, without prejudice to a final settlement.
Negotiations began again about 1884, and, by a Convention signed
at Washington on the 22nd of July, 1892, it was The Convention of
provided that a coincident or joint survey should be 1892.
undertaken of the territory adjacent to the boundary line from the
latitude of 54° 40′ North to the point where the line intersects the
141st degree of West longitude. It was added that, as soon as
practicable after the report or reports had been received, the two
governments should proceed to consider and establish the boundary
line. The time within which the results of the survey were to be
reported was, by a supplementary Convention, extended to the 31st
of December, 1895, and on that date a joint report was made, but no
action was taken upon it at the time.
In 1896 the Klondyke goldfields were discovered in Discovery of gold at
what now constitutes the Yukon district of the North- Klondyke.
West Territories, and in the following year there was a large
immigration into the district. The goldfields were most accessible by
the passes beyond the head of the inlet known as the Lynn canal,
the opening of which into the sea is within what had been the
Russian fringe of coast. The necessity therefore for determining the
boundary became more urgent than before. In 1898 the British
Government proposed that the matter should be Further
referred to three Commissioners, one appointed by negotiations.
each government and the third by a neutral power; and that, pending
a settlement, a modus vivendi should be arranged. A provisional
boundary in this quarter was accordingly agreed upon, but, instead
of the Commission which had been proposed, representatives of
Great Britain and the United States alone met in 1898 and 1899 to
discuss and if possible settle various questions at issue between the
two nations, among them being the Alaska boundary. They were to
endeavour to come to an agreement as to provisions for the
delimitation of the boundary
‘by legal and scientific experts, if the Commission should so decide, or
otherwise’,
memoranda of the views held on either side being furnished in
advance of the sittings of the Commission. Again no settlement was
effected.
The dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela The Convention of
as to the boundary between Venezuela and British 1903. Joint
Commission
Guiana, in which the Government of the United States appointed.
had intervened, had, by a Convention signed in February, 1897,
been referred to arbitration, the Arbitrators being five in number, two
Englishmen, two Americans, and one representative of a neutral
State. In July, 1899, before the award in this arbitration had been
given, Lord Salisbury proposed to the American Government that a
treaty on identical lines with the Venezuela boundary Convention
should apply arbitration to the Alaska Boundary question. To this
procedure, giving a casting vote on the whole question to a
representative of a neutral power, the American Government took
exception, and suggested instead a Tribunal consisting of ‘Six
impartial Jurists of repute’, three to be appointed by the President of
the United States and three by Her Britannic Majesty. A suggestion
made by the British Government that one of the three Arbitrators on
either side should be a subject of a neutral state was not accepted;
and eventually, on the 24th of January, 1903, a Convention was
signed at Washington, constituting a tribunal in accordance with the
American conditions. The three British representatives were the Lord
Chief Justice of England and two leading Canadians, one of them
being the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Quebec.
 The preamble of the Convention stated that its object was a
‘friendly and final adjustment’ of the differences which had arisen as
to the ‘true meaning and application’ of the clauses in the Anglo-
Russian Treaty of 1825 which referred to the Alaska boundary. The
tribunal was to decide where the line was intended to Points for decision.
begin; what channel was the Portland Channel; how
the line should be drawn from the point of commencement to the
entrance to the Portland Channel; to what point on the 56th parallel
and by what course it should be drawn from the head of the Portland
Channel; what interpretation should be given to the provision in the
Treaty of 1825 that from the 56th parallel to the point where the
141st degree of longitude was intersected the line should follow the
crest of the mountains running parallel to the coast at a distance
nowhere exceeding ten marine leagues from the ocean; and what
were the mountains, if any, which were indicated by the treaty.
The main point at issue was whether the ten Main point at issue.
leagues should be measured from the open sea or
from the heads of the inlets, some of which ran far into the land. If
the latter interpretation were adopted, the result would be to give to
the United States control of the main lines of communication with the
Klondyke Mining district, just as the Maine boundary threatened to
cut, and in large measure did cut, communication between the
Maritime Provinces and Quebec.
The Convention provided that all questions The Award.
considered by the tribunal, including the final award,
should be decided by a majority of the Arbitrators. The tribunal was
unanimous in deciding that the point of commencement of the line
was Cape Muzon, the Southernmost point of Dall Island on the
Western or ocean side of Prince of Wales Island. A unanimous
opinion was also given to the effect that the Portland Channel is the
channel which runs from about 55°56′ North latitude and passes
seawards to the North of Pearse and Wales Islands; but on all
subsequent points there was a division of opinion, the three
American representatives and the Lord Chief Justice of England
giving a majority award from which the two Canadian members of
the tribunal most strongly dissented. The majority decided that the
outlet of the Portland Channel to the sea was to be identified with the
strait known as Tongass Channel, and that the line should be drawn
along that channel and pass to the South of two islands named
Sitklan and Khannaghunut islands, thus vesting the ownership of
those islands in the United States. They also decided that the
boundary line from the 56th parallel of North latitude to the point of
intersection with the 141st degree of West longitude should run
round the heads of the inlets and not cross them. One section of the
line was not fully determined owing to the want of an adequate
survey. The net result of the award was to substantiate the American
claims, to give to the United States full command of the sea
approaches to the Klondyke Mining districts, and to include within
American territory two islands hard by the prospective terminus of a
new Trans-Canadian Railway.
It may be added that the Treaty of 30th March, The Behring Sea
1867, by which Alaska was transferred from Russia to arbitration.
the United States, gave rise not only to the territorial boundary
dispute of which an account has been given above, but also to a
controversy as to American and British rights in the Behring Sea,
more especially in connexion with the taking of seals. The questions
at issue were settled at a much earlier date than the land boundary,
having been, by a treaty signed at Washington on the 29th of
February, 1892, referred to a tribunal of seven arbitrators, two
named by the United States, two by Great Britain, and one each by
the President of the French Republic, the King of Italy, and the King
of Sweden and Norway. The arbitrators met in Paris and gave their
award on the 15th of August, 1893, the substance of the award, as
concurred in by the majority of the arbitrators, being that Russia had
not exercised any exclusive rights of jurisdiction in Behring Sea or
any exclusive rights to the seal fisheries in that sea outside the
ordinary three-mile limit, and that no such rights had passed to the
United States.
The last phase in the evolution of the Boundary line The Treaty of April
between Canada and the United States is the Treaty 11, 1908.
of 11th of April, 1908, ‘for the delimitation of International Boundaries
between Canada and the United States’, by which machinery is
provided ‘for the more complete definition and demarcation of the
International Boundary’, and for settling any small outstanding points
such as, e.g., the boundary line through Passamaquoddy Bay.

FOOTNOTES:
[230] See the report of the Lords of the Committee of Council for
Plantation Affairs, October 6, 1763, given at pp. 116-18 of
Documents Relating to the Constitutional History of Canada,
1759-91 (Shortt and Doughty).
[231] See State Papers, vol. i, Part II, p. 1369.
[232] Note.—The territory in dispute, however, seems partly to
have been claimed by the United States as Federal Territory and
not as belonging to Massachusetts. See the letter from Gallatin to
Monroe, December 25, 1814. State Papers for 1821-2, vol. ix, p.
562.
[233] See State Papers, vol. i, Part II, p. 1603.
[234] See State Papers, vol. i, Part II, p. 1625.
[235] See the two Blue Books of July, 1840, as to the ‘North
American Boundary’.
[236] The above account of the boundary disputes between Great
Britain and the United States in the region of Maine and New
Brunswick has been mainly taken from the very clear and
exhaustive Monograph of the Evolution of the Boundaries of the
Province of New Brunswick, by William F. Ganay, M.A., Ph.D.,
1901, published in the Transactions of the Royal Society of
Canada, 1901-2, and also published separately.
[237] It will be found in the State Papers for 1821-2, vol. ix, p.
791.
[238] The report will be found in the State Papers, 1866-7, vol.
lvii, p. 803.
[239] This point is described in the report as ‘100 yards to the
North and East of a small island named on the map Chapeau and
lying opposite and near to the North-Eastern point of Isle-Royale’.
[240] State Papers, vol. i, Part I (1812-14), p. 784.
[241] State Papers, vol. vi, 1818-19, p. 3—also in Hertslet’s
collection.
[242] As to the discovery of the Rocky Mountains, see vol. v, Part
I of Historical Geography of the British Colonies, p. 214 and note.
[243] Correspondence relative to the negotiation of the question
of the disputed right to the Oregon Territory on the North-West
coast of America subsequent to the Treaty of Washington of
August 9, 1842. Presented to Parliament in 1846, p. 39.
[244] A good account of the negotiations is in a Historical Note,
1818-46, included in a Blue Book of 1873, C.-692, North America,
No. 5 (1873).
[245] The boundaries of British Columbia had been fixed by an
Imperial Act of 1863.
 INDEX
Abercromby, 51, 102, 126, 189, 203.
Acadia, 49, 50, 69, 238 n., &c.
Act of 1791.
See Canada Act.
Adams, John, 289.
Adet, 289.
Administration of Justice.
See Justice, Administration of.
Albany, 24, 140, 145-9, 154, 157, 165-72, 174-5, 182, 203.
Alleghany, the, 9, 19, 59, 83.
Allen, Ethan, 101, 106, 107, 119 n., 191.
American Civil War, 228-9.
Amherst, Lord, 11, 15, 17, 19, 23, 63, 102, 106, 125, 126, 129,
130, 189, 203, 289.
Amiens, Peace of.
See Treaty.
Anne, Fort, 164, 166, 167, 188.
Anticosti Island, 2, 3, 80.
Arbuthnot, Marriot, 127, 198.
Arnold, Benedict, 98 n., 101, 108-12, 113, 114, 116-20, 122, 123,
157, 175, 177, 178, 180 n., 185, 198, 199, 291.
Ashburton Treaty.
See Treaty.
Assemblies, Legislative, 3, 4, 71-3, 77, 87-9, 241, 243, 245, 257-
65, 295-6, 318-9.
Australia, 32, 44, 45, 205, 278.

Bahamas, 223.
Barbados, 52 n., 253-4.
Bathurst, Lord, 278.
Batten Kill river, 169, 170, 175.
Baum, Colonel, 169-71, 170 n.
Baye des Chaleurs, 2, 224.
Beaver Creek, 27, 83.
Bedard, 307.
Bedford or Raestown, 17, 19, 20.
Belêtre, 12.
Bemus’ Heights, 174.
Bennington, 168-72, 171-2 n., 198.
Bermuda, 257.
Bird, Lieutenant, 153, 156.
Bloody Run.
See Parents Creek.
Bonaparte, Jerome, 300.
Boston, 85, 95, 96, 107, 130-2, 182, 213, 221, 309.
Bouquet, Henry, 11, 17, 18 n., 19, 20 and n., 21, 22 and n., 23, 24,
26, 27, 188.
Bouquet river, 159.
Braddock, General, 14, 18, 19, 21, 174.
Bradstreet, Colonel, 23-6, 98 n.
Brandywine, 134, 289.
Brant County, 234.
Brant, Joseph, 97 n., 119 n., 148-58, 150 n., 185-7, 186 n., 232-5.
Brant, Molly, 58, 149, 155.
Brantford, 152, 234, 235 n.
Breyman, Colonel, 170, 171, 176, 178, 179 n.
Brock, Isaac, 317.
Bunker’s Hill, 90, 106, 125-6, 130, 131, 150, 303.
Burgoyne, 116, 122, 125, 126, 129, 130, 131, 138, 139, 144, 145,
146, 152, 158-85, 160 n., 180 n., 182 n., 187, 188, 203, 237-
8, 303.
Burke, 54, 83, 89, 117, 128, 135, 216, 244.
Burke’s Act 1782, 298 n.
Burnet, Governor, 147.
Burton, Colonel, 63-5, 67.
Bushy Run, 21.
Butler, Colonel John, 152, 155, 156, 185.
Butler, Walter, 187.

Caghnawagas, 148-9 n.
Cahokia, 10.
Camden, 174, 197, 198.
Camden, Lord, 87, 129 n.
Campbell, Captain, 15.
Campbell, Colonel, 196.
Campbell, Major John, 98 n., 286.
Canada, 4-6, 8-10, 37, 39, 45, 50-3, 59-74, 114-5, 206-7, 210-1,
238-41, 263-4, 289-319 et passim.
Canada, Lower, 232, 238 and n., 246-319.
Canada, Upper, 85, 223-5, 232, 238 n., 246-319.
Canada Act, 239, 242-79, 312.
Canada Trade Act, 271.
Canadians.
See French Canadians.
Canals, 191, 239.
Canning, George, 310.
Cap François, 199.
Cap Rouge, 110.
Cape Breton, 3, 80, 223, 224, 237 n., 238 n., 292.
Cape Diamond, 112.
Carignan-Salières Regiment, 230.
Carleton, 32, 68, 75, 76, 89-100, 94 n., 95 n., 96 n., 102, 103-16,
118 and n., 119 n., 122-6, 130, 131, 133, 135, 137-44, 152,
158, 159, 161, 165, 173, 182, 185, 201, 220, 226, 236-88,
250 n., 295, 303.
Carleton Island, 185.
Carleton, Major, 188.
Carlisle, 19, 20.
Carlisle, Lord, 214.
Carolina, 196-9, 218, 220, 222, 304.
Carroll, 122.
Castine, 188.
Castlereagh, Lord, 303, 310.
Castleton, 164, 167, 169.
Cataraqui.
See Frontenac, Fort.
Cavendish, Lord John, 215, 216.
Cayugas, 148, 234.
Cedars, the, 119 and n., 120, 152.
Chambly, Fort, 102, 107, 108 and n., 122, 123, 239.
Champlain, Lake, 2, 52 n., 90, 101, 102, 105, 106, 109, 122-5,
130, 138, 145, 157, 159, 162-4, 174, 185, 187, 203, 239.
Charleston, 132, 173 n., 196, 197, 201, 222, 282-3.
Chartres, Fort, 9, 23, 27, 28.
Chatham.
See Pitt.
Chaudière river, 109, 185.
Cherry Valley, 151, 186, 187, 212.
Chesapeake Bay, 134, 175, 199, 200.
Chesapeake frigate, 303.
Choiseul, 31.
Christie, Ensign, 17.
Christie, Robert, 315, &c.
Church of England, 265-7.
Civil List, 255.
Clark, George Rogers, 187, 188, 236 n.
Clarke, Sir Alured, 271, 272, 304.
Claus, Colonel Daniel, 152.
Clinton, Sir Henry, 125, 126, 129 and n., 132-4, 175, 177, 181,
195-201.
Clive, Lord, 160.
Cobbett, William, 313.
Colbert, 64, 71.
Collier, Admiral, 127, 188.
Colonies, Relation to Mother Country, 37-59.
Companies, 40.
Congress, 60, 95, 97, 101, 106, 120, 184, 190, 191, 211, 213, 214,
300.
Connecticut, 101, 164, 166, 167, 186 n., 221.
Conway, General, 115, 136 n.
Cornwallis, Lord, 126, 127, 130, 132, 133, 197-201, 304.
Council of Trade and Plantations.
See Trade.
Councils, Executive, 142-3, 194, 252-65, 272, 296.
Councils, Legislative, 73, 79, 87, 105, 194-5, 241-3, 249-67.
Courtenay, 237.
Cowpens, 113, 198.
Craig, Sir James, 303-19.
Cramahé, Lieutenant-Governor, 142.
Croghan, 28.
Crown Lands, 95, 253, 266, 290-1, 295, &c.
Crown Land Funds, 253-5, 290.
Crown Point, Fort, 90, 101, 102, 123, 124, 161, 163, 167, 173,
185.
Cumberland, Fort, 19.
Customs Arrangement, 270-1.
Cuyler, Lieutenant, 15, 16.

Dalhousie, Lord, 278.

Dalyell, Captain, 17, 18 and n., 20.
D’Anville, 49.
Dartmouth, Lord, 104, 124, 135.
Dayton, Fort, 154, 157, 186.
Dead river, 109.
De Barras, 200.
De Grasse, Admiral, 127, 199-201.
Delaware river, 59, 132, 133, 139.
Delawares.
See Indians.
De Puisaye, Count Joseph, 230-2.
De Rochambeau, 198-200.
D’Estaing, Admiral, 184, 196.
Detroit, 9, 12-18, 20, 23, 25, 28, 225, 238, 245, 247, 284, 286.
Detroit river, 12, 14, 15, 16, 232, 275.
Diamond Island, 173.
D’Iberville, 49.
Dorchester, Lord.
See Carleton.
Drummond, Gordon, 147.
Du Calvet, 190 and n.
Dundas, 240 n., 265, 266, 267, 274, 276, 281, 284, 285.
Dundas Street, 274.
Dunmore, Lord, 221.
Dunn, Thomas, 298.
Dunning, 82.
Duquesne, Fort.
See Pittsburg.
Durham, Lord, 205, 248 n., 253, 260, 271, 279, 316.
Dutchman’s Point, 239.

Eastern Townships, 308.

East Florida.
See Florida.
Ecorces river, 14.
Ecuyer, Captain, 20.
Edge Hill, 21, 22, 26.
Education, 296-7.
Edward, Fort, 146, 164-8, 169, 172, 174, 175, 179-81.
Egremont, Lord, 5.
Elphinstone, Admiral, 304.
Erie.
See Presque Isle.
Erie, Lake, 5, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 23, 83, 84, 233-4, 275, 282,
284, 286.
Etherington, Captain, 16.
Eutaw Springs, 199.
Executive Council.
See Council.

Famars, 274.
Fees and Perquisites, 92, 193, 194, 280-1.
Ferguson, Major, 198.
Finlay, Hugh, 248 n.
Firth, 316.
Fishing Rights, 3, 80-1 and n.
American, 211, 264.
French, 1.
Fish Kill Stream, 180, 181.
Florida, 1, 5, 27, 28, 189, 190, 196, 223.
Forbes, General John, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 51.
Forster, Captain, 119 and n., 120, 121.
Fox, 87, 117, 128, 151, 160, 201, 216, 217, 219, 243, 244, 252,
262, 267, 287.
France, Declaration of War, 282.
Francis, Colonel, 164.
Franklin, Benjamin, 59, 122, 201, 204, 208, 227, 258.
Franklin, William, 59, 212.
Fraser, General, 164, 170, 176-8, 180.
Frazer, Captain, 171.
Freehold Court House, 196.
Freeman’s Farm, 176, 180 n.
French Canadians, 24, 60, 67 n., 75-8, 81, 91-100, 247, 249, 293-
7, 310-12, 317-18, &c.
French Creek, 9, 12.
French designs on Canada, 300-2.
French Intervention, War of Independence, 184.
French Royalists Settlement, 230-2, 232 n.
French Rule in Canada, 8-10, 39, 64-6, 141, 252, 294.
Frontenac, Count, 8, 147, 185, 288.
Frontenac, Fort, 9, 24, 225.

Gage, General, 4, 23, 25, 63, 64, 90, 95, 96, 97, 104, 107, 125,
126, 131, 190.
Gananoque river, 275 n.
Gansevoort, Colonel, 153.
Gaspé Peninsula, 2, 224.
Gates, General, 124, 172, 174, 175, 180 n., 181, 182, 197, 198.
General Assemblies.
See Assemblies.
Genet, 282, 283.
George, Fort, 90, 101, 122, 166, 188, 272.
George, Lake, 52 n., 58, 102, 162, 163, 166, 167, 173, 174, 187.
Georgia, 1, 196, 222.
Germain, Lord George, 124, 125, 131, 135-41, 152, 158, 165, 172,
173, 182, 190, 191, 195, 201, 215, 217.
German Flatts, 154-5, 186.
German Regiments, 37, 122, 133, 134, 138, 152, 162, 169, 176,
178.
Germantown, 134.
Gibraltar, 69, 201.
Gladwin, Major, 14, 15, 17, 23, 25.
Glenelg, Lord, 279.
Glengarry County, 229.
Gloucester, 199.
Gore, Francis, 316.
Grand river, 233, 234, 235 n.