Search

The article is a criticism of the article "Entangled Histories: Borderland Historiographies in New Clothes?," by Jorge Cañizares-Esguerra. The author makes a point of examining the broader field of research into the period during which North America was colonized by England and addresses Cañizares-Esguerra's claim that areas controlled by the Spanish were somewhat ignored by the English and also states that the Chesapeake is the area in the U.S. that would most qualify as a "core" to the nation's expansion. The political career of Creek Native American Alexander McGillivray, who worked to gain rights for his people is noted by the author because of his "cultural ambidexterity."

The author proposes that historians examine the history of the British and Spanish Atlantic empires through the perspective "entangled" history rather than comparative history. The author believes that although historians use comparative history to rise above nationalistic agendas in Anglo-American and Spanish American historiographies, there are limitations in comparative history. The author claims that entangled histories are concerned with entanglements, or interconnections and mutual influences, in society, and not on the comparability of history. The author uses the history of the British and Spanish in North America and the story of British quartermaster Peter Vezian and black Spanish prisoner Francisco Menéndez to support his theories.

This article addresses the question of home rule that the American Revolution attempted to answer. According to Carl Lotus Becker, the first question of home rule involved the colonies' external rights in relation to the British government, while the second was the internal question of who should rule at home. However, Jack P. Greene argued that the question of home rule is no less important. The various implications of Greene's arguments are also tackled.