The biggest difference between these two groups of sources to me was the increased focus of the more modern chapters, especially the Sivaramakrishnan on a more critical view of Indian forestry. While the text focusing on the development of national forests in America is generally sympathetic, and displays the broad view held by many of the authors that some legislation is better than none, I am hesitant to buy into this idea. In the context of the economically minded American perspective it is likely true that without national forests much of that land would have been overused by companies or cleared for development. However, the Sivaramakrishnan piece utilizes a variety of perspectives which in my opinion enrich the argument and present a much more accurate and balanced picture of the impact of forestry on India in the 19th century. In particular by not only relying on "government approved" sources he is able to strip back the layers of colonial ideology that lay over this entire issue. It is the most critical role of historians to strip away the ways a certain group has tried to bend reality to fit their needs. I am particularly interested in references to Europe and the land rights that many European peasants maintained. To me there is overwhelming similarity in the use of common land by farmers in 19th century India and Europe just a few centuries earlier.
In terms of archives I feel that the more modern readings that we did were more comfortable working with sources that aren't necessarily intended to be viewed. An example of this is the chart of the names of plants in the Sivaramakrishnan piece. This is in contrast to official letters or notes from government departments that are used in the Grove/Guha pieces. The more personal approach to archive is reflective of the shift towards more personal histories in recent decades.