be a question ofsubjectivity in historical accounts. Which from reading both essays one wouldfind this to be true. For example, the historical documents encountered byboth authors found some conflicting ideas. Comparing the two authorsstrategies to read history, Pratt does a complete job. A complete job meansreading primary sources from both the inferior and superior cultures. Thisway she could get the full picture of the actual accounts of the “contact zone.” On the other hand, Tompkins does not read both types of texts, only“ethnographic texts” and comes to her conclusion. But the basis of Pratt’s andTompkins’ essay is of the essays they read. Therefore each author is biasedin their own nature. There biases come from their culture, which affects theway one sees or understands, and writes history. So whose view is right? Itis oneself who ultimately decides on which historical point is true based onones biases....
