Scholarly Journal

This week in the article we read, the pros and cons were discussed about scholarly articles. The cons were that journals are just someone else's interpretation of the facts and that you only get one look at the event. Also, they require outside research when they assume the audience is familiar with the topic. On the other hand there were far more pros listed which includes referencing the sources the article used and using them to charge your own research, also they are short and to the point. And last they are peer reviewed by others in the field keeping them credible. In one way, scholarly journals are an excellent source of credible information on a subject, but they can be focused to one point so you there isn't much by way of general information.

The article we read by Elizabeth Fenn on biological warfare looked at disease warfare in the American colonies during the eighteenth century. She was tyring to widen the sphere of knowledge about this topic by "Going Beyond Jeffery Amherst" who it seems claimed that colonists deliberately spread smallpox to Native Americans during Pontiac's Rebellion. Using the facts she explains that it is very possible that biological warfare was much more common that we like to admit. She also mentioned how it is probable that people didn't write down these ideas many times, which had the feel of lack of evidence as evidence. She explained that this event was unusual because of the surviving writings directly incriminating those with biological warfare. I think her argument was pretty convincing up to that point. While she and Amherst make some interesting points, I find it tedious. Why focus so intently on one small episode of history? Is it like the story of the midwife? I can definitely see the pros of these scholarly journals, but at the same time what is the significance?
Megan Fotheringham