I’mcurious what do you think the main argument in the book is. I’m leaningtoward man vs indian, butI think that is too plain.Also,how do…

I’mcurious what do you think the main argument in the book is. I’m leaningtoward man vs indian, butI think that is too plain.Also,how do…

I’mcurious what do you think the main argument in the book is. I’m leaningtoward man vs indian, butI think that is too plain.Also,how do…

I’mcurious what do you think the main argument in the book is. I’m leaningtoward man vs indian, butI think that is too plain.Also,how do…

My answer’s very brief, as I haven’t read the book you’re asking the question about, but I wanted to add my two cents all the same.The phrase “man vs. Indian” strikes me as very odd. “Man vs. nature” or “man vs himself” may make complete sense, but Indians are people, too, right? For me, a better way to phrase the same idea might be to say “man vs. man.” Perhaps even more specifically, “Shawness vs. European American” or “Native Americans vs. white settlers”? The enotes study guide (see the link below) gives a very different, perhaps useful theme: “the impossibility of unifying ideologically and ethnically disparate forces.”(The use of the word “man” to mean “human” strikes me as a little old-fashioned, but it doesn’t sound quite as bad to me as a phrase that sets up “indian” as something different from and in opposition to “man.”)
I’mcurious what do you think the main argument in the book is. I’m leaningtoward man vs indian, butI think that is too plain.Also,how do…